code copyright

Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/code copyright

while the last couple of posts I think unfairly targeted Grey, they did bring up an important topic that I think we should be more familiar with. I'd like the conversation to continue and what I think would be really helpful are links to knowledgeable arguments or judgments on software copyright.

I'd like to start off with my view on the subject, so lets begin with the purpose of these rights(copyrights and patents) as per the US. many people are under the false impression that the government establishes these rights for the protection or profit of the author. while indirectly this seems to be the case, the real reason is to stimulate development and innovation in the sciences and arts. this is very important because it's easy to go too far and start inhibiting this progress instead. remember, these rights are given or taken away as with patents, by our government. they are government sponsored monopolies that the public is willing to tolerate for the benefit of the country. you have no inherent right to intellectual property.

so what does this mean and how do we or more importantly, the courts apply this to software?

on the software front, my research over the years says that it would be VERY difficult to claim a copyright for the source of a function the you freely disclosed in a public forum. there are a number of reasons for this; one of the primary purposes of a public forum such as this one is directly for the promotion of knowledge and learning. in addition, much of this code is specifically posted to answer a question with the understanding that people will actually use it. these are examples of fair use. with that being said, these and other reasons are not always very cut and dry... if someone posted an entire program they would have a better chance of defending against fair use. another fair use example is "effect on the market".
A court may not find fair use if an infringing work would take the place of the original work in the market. But the court notes that the Copyright Act was not intended to create monopolies, it was intended to foster creativity. Thus, the court finds that Accolade’s largely original work is merely an acceptable market competitor of Sega’s work. While natural market competition might have a negative financial effect on Sega, the court found that the benefit to consumers compelled a finding that the fourth factor weighed in Accolade’s favor. Therefore, the court found that Accolade had engaged in fair use.

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

algorithms are not copyrightable (though currently they are patentable), so a simple function posted on these forums might not be copyrightable at all. it's certainly the case that any basic expression of an idea or the only expression of the idea are not copyrightable.

personally, I find it a little funny that so many programmers want "their" individual functions credited. I wonder how many times they've used a function directly out of some programming text book without crediting it? or for that matter, any blitz program they've written and failed to acknowledge Mark... I sometimes put little blurbs next the functions that I've copy and pasted from these forums, but I certainly don't do that most of the time. I expect no credit when people use my "original" code posted here. but sure, it's nice when I see it.

this is definitely an important topic and it deserves a serious discussion.

here's a good link
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php

I copyrighted
Print "Hello World"
:P

Hello.

Weren't metaballs copyrigthed/patented or something?

No, not meatballs. (Just in case...)

Goodbye.

it wasnt the metaballs, it was the raymarching routines if i remember right.

It's such a grey area (no pun intended), copyrighting ideas and things you can't physically touch. Because that's what code is. It's the arrangement of electrical charges in a memory chip, or magnetic on a hard disc. Your copyrighting, essentially that. I've always found it a particulary confusing subject personally and i don't have an answer to where it ends, and what is considered complex, or useful enough to be considered copyright-able.

Okay here's my 1 million cents worth.

Yes the marching cubes algorithm for finding the approximate threshhold of an isosurface, otherwise known as metaballs/blobby objects/etc has a patent. Someone came up with a marching triangles algorithm in its place, which does much the same thing but not using cubes, and others have used other shapes. I myself came up with an image-based technique for representation in 2D. I think it's true to say I invented the technique using my creativity, but perhaps if the patent had not been in place I wouldn't have HAD to be creative. So yes the patent caused me to have to be creative, so it stimulated creativity, but just for the sake of it?

I don't know that `more creativity` is always a good thing when there are already perfectly good solutions to existing problems. It would be like saying okay, you want to cross a river, you can't because bridges are patented, you've got to find another way. Bridges work perfectly well but the patent forbids their implementation by a third party without some kind of condition being met.

One of the purposes of patents in our society is to ensure that the patent holder get special rights to the acquisition of monetary exchange for their invention, for a period of time - a leg-up over the competition which they are not allowed to replicate. It is a profit-directing mechanism which excludes access to ideas. It treats humanity as if we are all completely separate entities, confined to bodies, whereby if some idea happens to come to my separate mind first then I get to win the lottery, rather than anyone else. I think this exclusivity isolates and fragments and separates society, which when taken to the exteme is an act of war.

It also flies in the face of any kind of common shared existence. I don't believe that ideas come to individuals exclusively, nor that ideas can even exist unless they are shared. I believe that our minds are joined and that ultimately we are all one. In that context I don't think it is fair to give exclusive credit to one `piece of mind` - one person - at the exclusion of all others. This is a pretty cruel world, do we really need to go turning on each other by claiming ownership of something which is not truly our own, just to keep others from it, for protection or for gain, when we should be focussing on helping each other to solve the problems we are all confronted with?

Let's be clear, patents are designed to feed the economy by making select individuals richer, or more potentially so. What if I individually `independently` come up with an idea which is pretty cool and I write code to make it work and then I want to create a product with it only to find some other person had the same idea (surely not, how did that happen?!) and has slapped a legal injunction on it against me using the same idea for profit. How is that fair? Happens all the time. It's really a matter of promoting competition, ie whoever invents it FIRST gets full exclusive rights so that nobody else can enjoy the same benefits. It is divisive.

I also take issue with the suggestion that it encourages creativity. Creativity comes from sharing. Patents first allow creativity but as soon as the creativity has occured it slaps a restraining order on it. We don't live in an isolated world and we are not isolated people, I think patents work against that, they are too restrictive and exclusive. They are for business purposes, which defiles the human spirit.

I do agree that if you share code in a public forum you are giving away for free. Access=Permission. Even if the law does not agree that access=permission, I think to each human being we understand that if we get access to something that makes it ours and we can freely use it. Copyrights and patents are patently (pun intended) anti-freedom. It may be all very well me wanting to somehow attach some kind of `control` over something that was created *through me*, but if I do that not only will I stunt the free flow of that creativity through myself but also I will inhibit everyone else. Ownership is a mechanism of the ego. Regardless of laws laid down or copyright notices slapped on product or patents filed, everyone at heart is a free spirit with the freedom to share in everything that exists. Everything belongs to everyone.

Unfortunately, since most people cannot agree to `let this be` this way, to let everyone share everything, and we all have to greedily grab at everything to control it and keep it special and exclusive, we end up having to have things like patent and copyright laws to try to control the control, to stop people from stealing to exclude. Sharing isn't stealing or piracy when sharing is the common undstanding. So I really think patents and copyrights (and most laws) are there to try to control people who themselves insist on being controlling. If people are going to act like that, then I can see that the patents/copyrights `serve some purpose` to create an illusion of a cooperative society - but its an enforced cooperation covering up our inability to cooperate, based on our egotistical desires to have everything to ourselves.

So what can you do. If you wanna take out a patent, take one out. If you wanna copyright your code, copyright it. Does so doesn't give you the right to take away freedom from someone else, or the ability to stop them from exercising their freedom, it just imposes legal penalties for purposes of punishment and gain.

> Creativity comes from sharing

Far more creativity comes from competition and conflict. Patents encourage competition - whoever patents something FIRST gets to profit from it first (not forever, although modern changes to patent timeframes are making a mockery of that idea).

It's such a grey area (no pun intended),


...lmao.

Creativity comes from sharing
I find this to be true when designing a game and discussing ideas. The end result is way better that what we could have done as an individual.

I think you could probably copyright your code as a whole if its for
a completed game.

For just a function though, I don't think its an option.


Copyright is really not as difficult as people\the government make it
out to be.

I recently copyrighted my sisters poetry for her, and although the site
http://copyright.gov/ made it seem like a very difficult process, it was
really quite easy ^_^

All it takes is a bit of research.


Although it is always a good idea to come up with your own code,
instead of someone else's.

WERDNA

some things are just plain silly
with code especially high level code like basic, there are only so many ways to reinvent the wheel
if you are making some form of calculation some times it doesnt matter which number goes first if the result is still the same

i made a piece of code that moves the player around using the cursor keys and/or wsad. i own da codez gimme da monez

#1 anyone could do that
#2 cursor or wsad, player choice
#3 cursor and wsad 2 player keyboard mode
#4 robotron controll method that gets you in trouble with geometry wars a game thats more rip off than mary whitehouse is dead

crayon physics has seen alot of imitators, im not too sure what the 1st guys reaction/oppinion to this is

tetris and match 3 are probably the most remade games ever and some even charge for the privalage

I recently copyrighted my sisters poetry for her, and although the site
http://copyright.gov/ made it seem like a very difficult process, it was
really quite easy ^_^


from what i was told many moons ago all you had to do was write/draw/whatever and it was yours (proving it however ...)
if you spoke it in public first then wrote it down whos to say you wernt in the audience of this speaker (assuming no one knew who he was)

when sticking things online or submitting it for print (assuming publication doesnt have a we knick the rights clause) its better to date the work even with just the year, although my hand written notes have the full date just for my own personal organization

the luvre (sp) although they own the painting of the mona lisa they dont own the copy right
well they do in a way, they own the copyright to the photograph they took that is printed as post cards etc. but if you were allowed to take a picture of it you would own the copyright, but they dont like you taking photo's in there,
"you want a life sized copy? go to the gift shop"

I think copyright is a hinderance to creativity and stifles innovation. The situation is worst in the US but many other places are not much better. Thanks partly to the high prices charged by companies many US citizens cannot afford health insurances because the costs of so many treatments make them unaffordable.

I don't think there should be any copyright on music, I don't see why musicians can't WORK (i.e. perform) for a living like the rest of us.

I think software patents are one of the stupidist and most unhelpful developments yet.

Obviously there does need to be some protection for books, films and video games in order so they can recover some of their costs and make a profit but the provisions of current copyright law is hugely over done. If it was up to me you would automatically hold copyright on something like this for 5 years after which time it would automatically become public domain and available for study.

In many ways nothing is really original, everything is derivative in some way or another and copyrights and patents merely stymies human innovation and prevent us making improvements to existing designs for too long.

I would also like to see laws that allow drug companies to charge what they like up to the point where they recover reasnoble costs and after that have copyright charges capped at a low level.

There is only reasons I see not to adopt these kind of policies is greed and laziness.

Darkheart

I don't think there should be any copyright on music, I don't see why musicians can't WORK (i.e. perform) for a living like the rest of us.


some have to gig cos they dont make any money selling cd's due to thoughts like that
buying an album is just like buying a book
yes its harder to get jkrowling to read out the latest harry potter book at wembley

im anti record lable taking in the lions share of dosh
id hate to see the royalties cheque for these bands, some of em probably feel like they are giving it away the ammount they get

sorry books being covered ?!? to recover the costs?
what sitting around on ones behind with a chewed up pencil and paper and a cold cup of coffee waiting for ispiration (or the next giro)

if id take this further id ban the sale of music
want to listen to the doors?
go see a doors concert
oh too late sorry

edit:
ever done piece work?
thats what music royalties are like
sure some bands get million dollar record deals
but thats an advance on future earnings
if say they got £0.25 per song (and that just playing not writers credit) to split between the whole band
and they signed a £1 million record deal
thats alot of 25p's they have to shift before they earn another pennie
i get paid monthly and have to stretch it out without going mad at hmv (cant do zavvi now cos its dead), but what if you got your whole years wage all up front and you bought a big car with all that dosh
what will you live off for the rest of the year?
some bands arnt money wise and spend like its going out of fasion cos they have a million pound hole burning in their pockets
one big spending spree later and thats it
nothing till they sell that umpteenth album then they get one whole 25p to split between em

i trust if you are in a band you give cd's away free and i can download songs from your website for nowt racking up a huge dent in your bandwidth

I don't think there should be any copyright on music, I don't see why musicians can't WORK (i.e. perform) for a living like the rest of us

I think you underestimate the time and effort some musicians constantly put into their work. You don't just randomly hit notes on a Casio keyboard and market that as the next #1 hit.

Regardless, numerous studies have defined the ultimate copyright period for music as about 14 years. This gives artists just compensation for their work but doesn't stifle innovation and creativity through derivate works. Of course, the music industry would prefer to ignore that and push the period up to 1e999 years to ensure a healthy income forever...

> You don't just randomly hit notes on a Casio keyboard and market that as the next #1 hit.


The older I get, the more I wonder if that is a true statement.

id like to see your financial proof that bands can live off touring income alone (without having to tour more to compensate)

touring is hard on the individual as well as group and a stonkingly huge tour has been cited for band breakups, lack of creativity as they some times are sick of playing the same songs night after night that they just dont want to get into a recording studio at some point in their touring schedule to lay down a few new tracks

take this analogy
tesco at random decides 5 of its employees in oe branch will work in every tesco throughout the uk
sounds fine at first where i live as you cant spit without hitting one and they still want to build 2 more
you can still go home after a days/nights work
but sooner or later you cant go home, you have to go to a hotel and you not tesco is paying for it, hell you might end up sleeping in a tesco you shop we drop van that has been ferrying you from town to town as no sooner have you finished the 10pm-6am in one town you have to get on board and do the same shift somewhere else

that would suck wouldnt it

yet thats what a band goes through living on the road

now if music had no copyright thus no DRM, then sooner or later itunes would find themselves having to give music free as no bugger would pay, cos now there is no legal or moral obligation to pay for downloads when old napster file sharers spring up with glee

hmv might find their sales of CD's dwindle to the point of no return downsize their staff and rejig their stores to have more DVD/blu-ray discs

as i said up there artists earn piece work per CD sale
some bands cant tour, not in the same way as a 4 piece rock outfit, some of the dross i hear on kiss the works radio station would have a hard time selling a gig, but accept offers to do a live spot at this club or another
bleep bleep tecchno at wembley anyone?

some bands i want to see spent so long touring america that the european leg seems like a tired after thought so they only end up doing capital cities
one night in london tickets sold out within the hour ... and only 1/16th of the uk's fans can see em live this year

im pro artist anti label
heres why
that £1million advance, its a loan
the label pay for the recording time, thus owning the master tapes. another loan, if you knew you would be paying for the recording time yourself i think youd do it from the start blagging the master tapes in the process
the artist is the last to get paid and always the least
real bands dont get as much publicity per album launch as britney/christina/latest hot thing, infact the whole metal top 10's publicity total probably doesnt even dent one of theirs. they see these as safe cash cows, 8 year olds wernt found frequenting napster in the old days, nor where their parents when asked to get the latest album. your daughter wants the latest album, you buy the latest album, telling her there is an mp3 folder waiting for her to get home from school just isnt the same.

back to the tour stress bit
say the drummer of that band you really like quit after a really long tour that they had to extend, not for the fans, but so they could actually earn money. he went to uni and got his degree but chose the band instead as it seemed way cooler than accountancy/whatever job you do
by some twist of fate he now works with you, doing exactly the same job
he tells you how being on tour he missed the birth of his daughter, worried about his wifes fidelity and being the drummer got the ropey cast off groupies so kept himself 'pure' for her
now he sees his baby grow up, willl be there when she learns to talk as hes missed most of the walking part
6 months later one of you is being fired and the decicion might just be a coin toss

you loose
bad luck never mind i hear that band you really like is looking for a drummer still

oh and back on the books
if publishers sold encrypted pdf's instead of paper based books and someone cracked that book you want, youd download it without question instead of buying the print/electronic version, its human nature
the only wobbly leg youve got to stand on with music is "well if i copy it im not stealing it as ive not walked out of a shop with it" which is the only way of getting free books these days aside from the library

I'm a musician, I've always composed music for fun since I was about 15, I didn't do it because someone paid me to, I did it because I wanted to, because it's part of who I am. For most people who are very musical (I am not BTW but I can recognise it in others) it's just something that they do, almost have to do, certainly want to do.

Also while individual pieces may take a long time to complete the actual act of composition is usually done in "flurries" of inspiration which last a short time and then I evaluate and either try to remember or discard as rubbish. The "Pink Panther" theme was famously written in only 20 minutes and I would imagine that many (if not most) of the most well known songs were probably written in only a few hours. While some of the results from these can be wonderful, why should that person (or their beneficiary 40 years later) be paid again and again for the same few hours work? Why should everyone else in the world be prevented from using those same or very similar sounds just because I played them "first" and copyrighted that sound?

If that person weren’t just living of royalties from 20 years ago wouldn't they maybe do something more useful and fulfilling with their time?

I think most artists LIKE performing their work for people and the idea that this should not be something they have to do could only have happened in today’s society.

A lot of thinking here appears to be coloured by the current systems in place; artists and musician DON'T NEED $1,000,000 advances, expensive studios or a Rolls Royce (even if it is good for the voice). These are all expectations built up on a model that always was artificial and is now collapsing as unsustainable. There is a better way available, there always has been but people are still blinkered by the things are now.

There are some companies and individuals who are more modern in their thinking and also take action to back it up for example ID software has been quite good at releasing the full source for their games, for free once it has stopped selling the game.

Oh, and Ginger Tea I hate to be critical of another's prose and spelling, (particularly being a dyslexic myself), but your lack of capitalisation and punctuation makes your posts quite difficult to read.

Darkheart

LOL
I'm willing to take a bet.
The bet is if one of you guys did invent a unique mindblowing algorithm, you would be camped outside the patent office the next day. :)

Ironically it's the patent office that has done the most to illustrate how software patents are totally unworkable :D

What worries me about software patents is that big business will take them seriously (rather than resisting the concept) because paying out 1 million on patent x doesn't matter when you've 3 million coming in from patent y, effectively locking out new entrants with an economy built, like the mortgage market, on hot air.

Darkheart, it's 42 degrees here atm and I can't be bothered formulating a proper response, but suffice to say I disagree. =]

I think most artists LIKE performing their work for people and the idea that this should not be something they have to do could only have happened in today’s society.

It's nothing to do with society and everything to do with technology, it being possible to craft a studio recording that is practically unperformable. If an artist views getting the perfect recording as the entire point of the exercise then who are you or I or anyone to say that such a position is not valid?

I agree, though, that (thanks to Disney et al) copyright lingers on far, far too long these days and has been utterly subverted from its original purpose. You want people/companies to profit from their creations, not profiteer.

musician DON'T NEED $1,000,000 advances
They don't get them, do they? As I understand it a million dollar deal is a million dollar debt that you have to recoup before starting to turn a profit, and one that you'll probably spend on the facilities of the record company that loaned you the money in the first place. (ie They've just indentured you with hot air... my there's a lot of that stuff in the corporate world!)



They don't get them, do they? As I understand it a million dollar deal is a million dollar debt that you have to recoup before starting to turn a profit, and one that you'll probably spend on the facilities of the record company that loaned you the money in the first place




Spot on. You have to pay everything back that the record company has spent in promoting you, paying for tours etc..

People can be forgiven for thinking that when you get a record deal it's akin to winning the lottery, it's not.

well if my record deal = loan bit didnt get spotted tis been reapeated enough now :)

least you pointed out some bits to add credit to your argument instead of "well they can tour cant they" as it was left when i went to work. hence the lousy nay sloppy grammar as i quickly jotted down the tesco analogy that i thought of before going to bed.

i spoke aobut this at work and one thing i had to bring up was
Obviously there does need to be some protection for books, films and video games in order so they can recover some of their costs and make a profit


sorry but what exactly are the costs that jk rowling had to recover when writing the first harry potter book?
a pen
some paper
the coffee she bought in the coffee shop she sat her plageristic witches arse on (im sure thats also the title of her next serise)
and if she was feeling flash a pc with word processor on it
hardly breaking the bank now is it

and book authours get book advances (if they are good enough they can be huge) but as with the music biz its an advance on future sales

its kinda like you getting 5 years wages in one go and in a job that you cant quit cos youve signed a 5 year deal
what if youve spent all that money by the end of the second?
what do you get for the other 3?
nothing
you have a job so the bennefits agency wont foot the bill for your spending habbits

so authour/musician its the same (or very similar)
you get an advance, you get paid royalties, but the first god knows how many are repayments of said advance. then finally, eventually as the book hits the remaindered shelves, you just might get another royalties cheque.

edit:
im in a 'band', if you can call it such a thing. me and a mate from where i used to live started jamming round my brothers who had a 4 track, id do spoken word poetry the odd breathing with a harmonica in my mouth, as playing would be the wrong word ;)
roped my brother into guitar work and he'd mix everything at his house.
i got my bass back off of a band my brother knew whos bassist quit
bass fx got added

then some time befor i moved and that band had been wound down only ever doing one 'gig' a house warming for a friend of his. gigging was never our intention, i used to work shifts so meeting up to jam was infrequent and erratic and normally unproductive :)
but i left him some fx stuff (well one 20 odd minute sound scape) moved down here and found myself in another 'band' a duet with him again him using that sound scape and it was released to the internet

hes involved with digital vomit an anarchistic musical collective as ive been told and our current 'band' that was labeled, probably incorectly, as bill hicks meets atari teenage riot. now if i had my dictaphone with me at work i would have had a shead load of stuff for him to work with about all of my thoughts on this subject that i couldnt vent on here without a permanent ban or a thread lock

now all of these tracks have gone out free and i never expected paying anyway
but to some its a job, can you see any of the stones doing a day job inbetween tours (ok they are pensioners now but when they were younger)

one local band who has made it kinda big, big enough to tour america are alt-country rockers "the broken family band" funny thing is, even with all the touring they have been known to do, the drummer (always the drummer) works in my local HMV (or atleast ive been told he does) touring must really pay his bills.
and one guy i met via a nightschool class mate works in the local boarders and i recognised his face in the mug shots of fire and forget a local pub-rock band, ive been meaning to see them as this class mate is now their drummer
if i see him ill ask him what if anything he makes gigging, cos unless you make it big and get that advance you are probaly going to need a second job just to make ends meet

edit:
now with the rise of itunes hmv digital napster and all the other legal mp3 sites, i do wonder what the use of a record label is
sure if you get signed you get an advance, but new that would be quite low, im sure you could get that ammount as a propper bank loan and book recording studio time and self publish
take those master's to your commonal garden mp3 ripper and sign up with itunes, you get the brunt of the money instead of the label
cos when sold via itunes what exactly are the labels doing for their money?
pressing CD's?
nope
promoting you?
probably not, you might have searched for the band name or gone via a myspace link

so whats the deal?
well remember when they paid for your recording time and snagged the masters in the process, (then wanted the money back the cheek) well its their music they are selling, not yours, you just happened to be performing it and possibly worte it too

some bands record every gig they do, some get filtered down as bootlegs, others a live CD, some bands and these are the ones i like the most (not necesarily for their musical skills) they allow you to buy the cd direct from them (not a bootleg soundboard cd that the sound engineer probably made) so if you liked the gig its a souvineer, far better than a tshirt or a poster
and if they sold out the gig you could order one anyway to hear what you missed out on

my other beef is the fact that 'coders' of some sections and tech support (in the NHS) earn stupid money for what they do
why?

why should some bloke in IT working for the big hospital of your town earn more than perhaps 2 nurses?
somehow someone said its a job skill, yet children are leaving school with more IT skills than ever (those that pay attention that is) so we are becomming less and less reliant on experts on how to use computers, sure there are going to be times where, even if you knew what to do, your boss might not want you rooting around your pc with a screwdriver if there is an engineer paid to do that job.

so if i find out what the drummer from the broken family band earns via the band and find its alot less than the current wages in the IT sector i thknk a big dose of STFU would be called for from any IT technician demanding free music.

and please just dont get me started on those over paid ballerinas the world calls permier league footballers
if beckham wasnt good with his feet hed be down your local tesco stocking shelves, bright he aint

sorry but what exactly are the costs that jk rowling had to recover when writing the first harry potter book?
a pen
some paper
the coffee she bought in the coffee shop she sat her plageristic witches arse on (im sure thats also the title of her next serise)
and if she was feeling flash a pc with word processor on it
hardly breaking the bank now is it


How about living expenses? It probably took her a year or more to write it. She had to live off of something.

Copyright is good... for example, if I put a freeware game on my site I don't want random visitors to start selling it on CDs.

It's also good for creativity as instead of copying directly what someone else did it forces people to make their own games.

:)

How about living expenses? It probably took her a year or more to write it. She had to live off of something.

And when you bring pleasure to tons of people (read when your product has "done business") your pay check should reflect that.

[Copyright]'s also good for creativity as instead of copying directly what someone else did it forces people to make their own games.
Well you're into the area of patents, there. I'm not sure it's worth it for games... the Crazy Taxi documentation was intimidating! But, hang on, you might implement your game idea really badly and I hardly see how preventing anyone else coming along and doing it better -- y'know, competing -- helps our society or culture any.

The internet is the daddy at the moment.If you say it is your code where is the proof,you could have copied that code from the internet.So you and the origanal coder have no rights.The origanal coder loses rights because there is no proof it was his code.

The internet it is a wonderful thing.

Copyright is good... for example, if I put a freeware game on my site I don't want random visitors to start selling it on CDs.


Seriously, what's stopping them from doing it anyway? Do you really think you'll bump right into a store selling those CDs and get the chance to sue them?

There isn't really a point in protecting something if you can't easily detect and sue the user if he's doing the wrong thing.

I agree it's best to have that kind of protection than no protection at all, but in the end it won't make so much difference. It's like, "sure, go ahead, protect it under copyright, but be in mind that there's definately going to be someone doing what you're telling them not to".

EDIT: Got a question, and this is not reserved to US laws but rather global (as I live in a different country). If I place a "Copyright 2009 my_name" on the AppTitle of my game, for example, does that mean it's "protected"? Don't I need to pay some organization or the government of my country to keep track of these protections and to keep them legal\official?

Copyright is automatic.

How about living expenses? It probably took her a year or more to write it. She had to live off of something.


oh im sure she signed on if she wasnt already working a normal job
ive written stories, its not as iff you have to go to the job centre and sign off as 'employed' even though you are earning ziltch
once she got the advance for book 2 however she wouldnt be able to sign on, not if the advance was high enough

year or more to read and plagerize everyone/thing else ;) even the name was stolen from trolls

year or more to read and plagerize everyone/thing else ;) even the name was stolen from trolls
Amusing as your dislike of Rowling is, even if your grievances are completely with foundation it says nothing applicable to authors per se. She has, quite expertly, derailed you from your argument -- bet you hate her even more now :P

> There isn't really a point in protecting something if you can't easily detect and sue the user if he's doing the wrong thing.

If you don't try to enforce a copyright then you lose it. If you purposely let one group get away with infringement other groups can do so as well.

> why should some bloke in IT working for the big hospital of your town earn more than perhaps 2 nurses?

Because that bloke in IT is harder to replace then two nurses, sad but true.

oh the jk rowling digs are mostly due to the convos i was having at work regarding copyright free music and the post that writers need to recoup development costs
she just sprung to mind as if i said anyone id normally read the name would be lost

but its not as if she or anyone else went to the job centre and found this

wanted
someone to write 7 books about a boy who finds out hes a wizard and goes to a school for young wizards
£50,000 advance on the first book increasing with each volume if satisfactory and £1.50 per book sold there after


she and alll other professional writers were probaly holding down some job whilst writing, being an unpublished writer doesnt pay the rent or put food on the table
steven king could have been a toilet cleaner for all i know before he found fame and fortune with his writing
but listing living expences in the equation of 'development costs' is utter folly

my point still stands
a writers (especially an unpublished one) only out goings regarding their trade are
a pen and paper
followed by one of these
a type writer
a word processor (for the 80's years)
a pc with word processor
a laptop with a word processor
for everything else there is the giro or a job
once you find you can earn money writing and get a comfortable advance, then you can give up the day job and forget you were ever a road sweeper by trade

Copyright is automatic.
In the US, you must have your copyright registered or else you can't file suit if somebody tries to swipe your work.

If you don't try to enforce a copyright then you lose it.
This is incorrect.

In the US, you must have your copyright registered or else you can't file suit if somebody tries to swipe your work.

That makes a certain sort of sense. The concept of a copyright having been infringed is still there regardless though, right? Even if you can't do anything about it due to having failed to register?

> This is incorrect.

Technically yes, in action though - if you let everyone copy your code for free and then try to tell a specific group not to do so, you are going to have an uphill legal case. The longer the free use goes on the harder it will be to reclaim the rights.

Ginger Tea... You do not have to put a value on time. But many people in the world do. Writers have to put in the hours writing. This is time that could have been spent doing something else, even possibly earning money. Time has value whether or not you want to take that into consideration.

Are you saying that if you make the next big video game, all you should be entitled to is the cost of your PC and the software you used to develop it?

Of course not, time is money. There is nothing wrong with listing the value of time spent in the development costs.

You may not think your time has value, but many of us do.

cost of living is paying rent bills buying food
cost of living isnt time
i dont care what you do with your 'free' time or what she or steven king does

you write, you havnt got a book deal, you do it 'free', the thing that pays the bills isnt the writing as you havnt got a book deal
if she or anyone else wants to write whilst signing on then thats their perogative, if all the costs of living are handled then s/he can write 24/7 should they wish
maybe another unpublished writer writes on the tube/train on the way to work/home

i used to write on my days off in starbucks till captain d**khead got me barred from that branch cos he decided to be a bit too stalker on one of the girls there

true hours spent writing could be hours spent earning money
you could say that for hours spent watching day time tv

i am NOT dissing jk rowling or any writer (even though i mocked the f out of her at work] nor am i begrudging them the fact that their books sell and mine is still unfinished without much of a plot, but it idled away the hours that i could have spent watching tv

when you DONT have a book deal you dont have any book meoney coming in so the book is earning you nothing
once a publisher buys the rights to publish in this that and tother country then that book has started repaying you for the work (hard or other wise) that you put into it

if you have a 5 book deal and a £1 million advance and you can quit your day job, then every day is a working day for an author, all they have to do is put the time to good use

and unlike other proffesions a writer can start and stop at will whenever and whereever they may be
you might be walking along the beach on a bank holiday weekend not earning money from your day to day job
a writer walking along the same beach might spot themselves down on a rock and write prose, notes, chapters even

what i am not saying (nor have I) is if you want to be a writer quit your job, sign off and recieve no income what so ever untill your book is ready to send to a publisher or ten untill someone buys the rights
that would be silly
also none of the top selling writers applied for a job found in the job center like the one i posted up there
they chose to take that aa their vocation and worked it around the humdrum bill paying job they were looking forwards to leaving once this writing thing started paying for itself

edit:
and its hard to quantify (if thats the right word) the whole time is money thing when your sole income is based on royalties
im not sure if authours get a 'loan' like the record industry or weither they just purely sell the publishing rights but that doesnt necessarily mean a big fat cheque.

so you might sell the rights for £10,000 and get £3 for every hard back sold and £1.50 paper back
true that £10k could help you take a year off work to write book 2 and they might loan you x ammount to do so, but sooner or later everyone who wants to buy your book will have and those £1.5 * however many books sold in a month cheques will eventually dwindle and if you only had 3 good books in you it wont last you into retirement

In the US, you must have your copyright registered or else you can't file suit if somebody tries to swipe your work.

And that implies paying a certain fee?

In the US, you must have your copyright registered or else you can't file suit if somebody tries to swipe your work.


Not entirely true -- you just can't file suit until you register it, but it doesn't mean anyone is free to take your code unless you bothered to register it.

Your creations automatically are copyrighted, but if someone 'steals' them you just can't sue them unless you bother to do the official registration first before dragging them into court over it.

And you need to pay something to register it officially?

And you need to pay something to register it officially?


I believe so, but if you feel certain enough that you could win a courtcase on it then that shouldn't be an issue.

Patent system failed big on Color graphics, Mouse they both ar patent by a sweede long before pc was known.. but still it dint protect owner of it..


so forgett


patent is evil straight from o.... Gates :)

but it doesn't mean anyone is free to take your code unless you bothered to register it.
Unless you have it registered, there is nothing stopping them from doing it. They can steal it, register a copyright on it themselves (since you never cared enough about your work to do so) and even go after you for violating their copyright ;)


Weren't metaballs copyrigthed/patented or something?

No, not meatballs. (Just in case...)



Ya know.. I DID actually read 'meatballs' :S Wasnyt sure if it was a jooke, a reference to someone TRYING to patent meatballs, or that meatballs was some new jargon for some funky soft-body (and carnivorous perhaps?) physics methods.

------------------------------------------------------

Copyright can't be applied to so much code itself, but the effects/direct application of the code and media accompanying it.
A typical example would be an analogy to music:

You can't copyright musical notes or words, but the direct result of linking specific notes/words in a set way to produce a unique and individual result CAN be copyrighted.

It's a little more complex, though, because looking at some examples, are they unique or not?

a=1
a=(a=a)
a=(a/a)
a=(a^0)

How different is copyrighting any one of the list above from copyrighting an entire game?

Though the above is merely a languistic definition and translation of binary data, too, so I think that because such language is not necessarily the work of thwe individual's creation, that you cannot consider a programs' code in any particular language itself, only the product and implication of the product. Such as a physics system that operates in a specific way that can be readily identified separately from another physics system. This isn't going to be easay of course, because most physicssystems try (at least) to mimic Real-World physics, so there's likely to be a huge amounyt of similarities in that end product, creating the problematic paradox, thhat the fundamental differences may only be apparent within the raw exectution and design of the code itself.

Boundaries and reasonable safeguards need to be in place, in the same manner, it wouldn't be possible to copyright, say a scale of musical notes in a particular octave, or songwords that were simply "aaaaaaaaaaaah" These things are too generic and too practical, not to mention the obvious clause that they have been around since whenever.

Boundaries and reasonable safeguards need to be in place, in the same manner, it wouldn't be possible to copyright, say a scale of musical notes in a particular octave, or songwords that were simply "aaaaaaaaaaaah" These things are too generic and too practical, not to mention the obvious clause that they have been around since whenever.


yet you can and it has been done
if you record a grand piano playing each note and saving the results as a wav file you own the copyright of that sound file, this only realy covers you if someone uses this grand piano folder and uses it as a sample bank without you licencing them to
it doesnt stop 10 other people sticking microphones on the same piano at the sam time and recording the results

mozart is out of copyright but the recordings made for cd arnt as its the sound recording not the music that it is applicable to, if he were alive hed get a writers royalties cheque

some bloke made a song called one minutes silence, where the band stopped playing and all you got was coughs, shuffles and background noise
someone else did a similar thing and he took thenm to court (and iir won) for copyright infringement
for recording silence !?!
if they used his sound recording id concur but this was an unrelated silent track
if thats the case surly the bbc must pay out royalties every rememberance sunday when they do the 'extended' remix "2 minutes silence"
and if i open sound recorder and record with no mic installed who should i make out the cheque to? or do microsoft already own a licence to record silence (this is assuming that the case actually went to court and that he did win this absurd claim. my dad told me this story nearly 10 years ago but i cannot ask him (without an ouija board) who it was, but i do know the goons version of silent night was just silence :) )

I think it all comes down to whether you believe it's right to be able to claim `ownership` of a finite form of expression. I think that doing so makes us all separate from each other, competing with each other, and I don't think that's the kind of beings that we are. Imposing that kind of rule system onto people who are inherently open and sharing, clearly shuts people out and excludes us from each other. I don't see how that can be fair at all.

Pay the fine or rutt in jail :)

'rutt' is that what they call it these days ;)

Indeed, you're right, Ginger Tea.. wasn't it Simon & Garfunkel actually?

But yeah... I guess it's mostly down to just how miserly and penny pitching we or they are :S