Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Intellectual property in the awesome future

124

Posts

  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Garick wrote: »
    Daxon wrote:

    Sorry but that just, sounds like a massive waste of time.

    Well done! After years of studying you we can finally know when you want to go get a meal and what you will cook! Huzzah for science!


    For a disabled person, that could be absolutely huge.

    Also... think bigger picture, if it's possible for one, then it's possible for all.

    Imagine if as a child going to school included an hour brain test every day, you could have individual profiles on all students!

    It would have absolutely horrifying possiblities to be used badly, and amazing possibilites for humans if used correctly.

    Actually, that'd be pretty much useless. Brains change regularly. Scalled neuroplasticity. The pattern for something evolves over your life. It may even completely restructure at various points: you might learn something about cats or animals that turns your personal knowledge of the "animal kingdom" upside down.
    Every single time you see a new cat, your cat blueprint is getting refined even more. Everytime you encounter a cat it's getting linked to something in your memory. Every time you do anything cat related at all...you get the picture. When I say pattern of a cat I don't really mean a static thing.

    So fine tuning it on children would be completely useless in a very short time: children haven't even set stuff like that down, they're still learning it at a very rapid rate.

    Something like that would require constant updating pretty much every day for as long as you wanted to use it, for every thing you wanted to read. That's a huge effort for something you could just ask.
    For people you couldn't just ask, they're not likely to cooperate.

    My Dark Souls 2 Diary
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • GothicLargoGothicLargo Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Either reselling is morally wrong, or piracy isn't.

    Imposing artificial scarcity on something which is itself not scarce is wrong.

    Digital information is not scarce with the internet. The commodity has no scarcity, so expecting people to accept imposed artificial scarcity defies common sense. Let's face it, the days of making money selling discrete physical instances of a piece of non-scarce data ARE OVER. This is why Blockbuster's business model evaporated in barely ten years, because technology has changed the scarcity of the commodity.

    The business world knows that people tend to acquire in one of two modes: convenience or fidelity; customers will give up as much of the one as they can to get as much of the other. There is no happy medium; Starbucks learned that the hard way. You cannot have a store on every street corner selling $5 coffee; McDonalds will (and did) move in and sell the same stuff for 99 cents and destroy you.

    If you don't believe me, look at pirate bay: the vast majority of seeds will be on the lowest quality, smallest size downloads, and the next bunch of seeds will be on the highest quality, largest size ones. Because people only think in terms of full fidelity or full convenience, and businesses know this.

    P2P downloading is the holy grail of consumer convenience. Whatever you want, whenever you want it, for free. The companies should know, from their own experience with convenience market forces, that they cannot fight that business model with anything less then the same. People shopping in that market are after one thing, convenience, and they're giving up a lot (protection from legal reprisal) to get it.

    One way or another, the content creators will have to change their business model to one where copies of the information cost nothing. Is there still a fidelity market for movies? Sure. Movie theaters. Can't get much less convenient then that. People shopping for a fidelity experience for movies drive miles to pay a lot for a ticket, more for popcorn and more for pop. So, if movies are structured in such a way that they aim to make their profit on ticket sales alone, they're safe to compete with the free convenience experience by making their non-scarce digital commodity free.

    atfc.jpg
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    But... I saw a commercial where a camera man could barely feed his family because someone downloaded a movie.

    Srsly tho, movie producers and musicians still have a long future of making millions from concerts and theater showings. They just are unforunately going to lose much of the $omg trillionz they make from Blockbuster.

  • GothicLargoGothicLargo Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Srsly tho, movie producers and musicians still have a long future of making millions from concerts and theater showings. They just are unforunately going to lose much of the $omg trillionz they make from Blockbuster.

    Yep. Studios will survive, they're just going to have to rethink their revenue model to one which is completely focused on the fidelity experience. Selling or renting copies of information is no longer a viable business model, and no law is going to change that.

    atfc.jpg
  • DaxonDaxon Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Woops wrong thread.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Srsly tho, movie producers and musicians still have a long future of making millions from concerts and theater showings. They just are unforunately going to lose much of the $omg trillionz they make from Blockbuster.

    Yep. Studios will survive, they're just going to have to rethink their revenue model to one which is completely focused on the fidelity experience. Selling or renting copies of information is no longer a viable business model, and no law is going to change that.
    Exactly. That's the way I've always tried to explain it to people. At one time, the ability to put music onto a replayable format was massively valuable. We now have CD burners and USB sticks coming out of our butts. Regardless of copyright, there should be no avoiding a massive market shift because of this technological shift, and attempts to use the law to stave off the shift should be met with extreme suspect.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    One way or another, the content creators will have to change their business model to one where copies of the information cost nothing. Is there still a fidelity market for movies? Sure. Movie theaters. Can't get much less convenient then that. People shopping for a fidelity experience for movies drive miles to pay a lot for a ticket, more for popcorn and more for pop. So, if movies are structured in such a way that they aim to make their profit on ticket sales alone, they're safe to compete with the free convenience experience by making their non-scarce digital commodity free.

    So novelists can basically go fuck themselves, right?

    Also, if movie theaters are the only point at which move producers can realize revenue, there will be less money in the movie business overall and probably less movies made. Unfortunately, this won't mean we'll do away with crap movies and keep the good ones. It will mean more lowest common denominator movies that are most likely to draw crowds. It will mean less risk taking on movies.

    If movie producers are basically excluded from realizing any profit on digital versions of content, there will also be no incentive for them to create digital versions of content. There will be no dvds or blue-ray discs for people to rip and upload to p2p networks. Barring physical theft of movie reels and subsequent conversion, the only movies on p2p networks will be shitty camcorder bootlegs.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Novels are a tricky issue, no doubt. In their case, the copy is itself the work, which makes the argument less acceptable. At the same time, I've always gotten all my books for free at the library, so go figure.

    You're not winning me over with the argument that we should force money to stay in the indusrt when it comes to movies. I think quality would remain constant.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    It's not so much an argument in favor of as much as other factors to consider. You paint the issue as far more black and white than it really is.

    edit: but the crux is, if content producers are not able to make money off digital content, then there will be less digital content.

  • DaxonDaxon Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Books >>>>> Reading stuff on a shitty computer screen.

    I don't care if it's super special book paper-imitating screen. It's still shit and has no character in comparison to a book.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Daxon wrote: »
    Books >>>>> Reading stuff on a shitty computer screen.

    I don't care if it's super special book paper-imitating screen. It's still shit and has no character in comparison to a book.

    My girlfriend (and her kindle) would disagree with you. E-ink is pretty great, and as much as she reads, a reader is much more convenient than physical books. Really the only drawbacks to e-ink readers (besides the investment and value of the device itself) are that you can't write on the text as you read. Of course, there's no reason that feature can't be implemented.

    I guess by comparison, vinyl sounds better than digital recordings, but people prefer the convenience of mp3's to the quality offered by vinyl (that and almost everything is recorded in digital these days anyways).

  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    you can't flip to a page you want to find (and didn't bookmark) as easily with an ereader.

    That plus underlining and being able to write notes in margins (as well as put in those sticky tabs, and extended annotations on post its) make e-readers fall short of a physical book. Yes there are probably ways to incorporate all those digitally, but if you've ever extensively worked on a literary text you'd find it awkward to do it the same way on an e reader.

    Also, you can't lend out an ebook the way you'd hand someone a physical copy of a book you own. Especially if they don't own an e-reader.

    Electronic devices can malfunction, and you just can't take that chance if it's work-related. You need hard copies to fall back on.

    And also, this is somewhat politically incorrect to say, but books are status symbols and conversation pieces. People like to display their bookshelves. Even facebook has a virtual bookshelf app for you to flash your lit-peen.

    For these reasons, I'd say E-readers have no chance of replacing books the way MP3's made CD's irrelevant. They may become a primary reading device, but books will still be around in more of a capacity than CD's are today.

  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    You can't have a physical library with an e-reader.

    I love going over to my bookshelf and poking through it seeing what book I'd like to read. I like seeing my collection there, it makes me want to add to it.

    It's just not the same for electronic stuff. I don't give a damn about the size of my steam list. In fact the longer the list the more annoying it is to find the one I want. Whereas I can know where my book is because I always put it in the same point in physical space.

    It'd be nice if they could come up with a better printing medium than paper though, something still biodegradable but doesn't involve trees at all. I know they are mostly using recycled or renewable forest paper nowadays but it'd be nice if the poor things didn't have to die at all.

    My Dark Souls 2 Diary
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    You can't have a physical library with an e-reader.

    I love going over to my bookshelf and poking through it seeing what book I'd like to read. I like seeing my collection there, it makes me want to add to it.

    It's just not the same for electronic stuff. I don't give a damn about the size of my steam list. In fact the longer the list the more annoying it is to find the one I want. Whereas I can know where my book is because I always put it in the same point in physical space.

    Yes and there are people who love their physical record collections just as much.

    Like I said before, the biggest drawback to an ebook is you can't write in an ebook. Which of course includes underlining, etc. Of course, there's no reason software/hardware can't fix that.

    I don't really get the whole page flipping thing, (i haven't played around much with ebooks) though I'd assume if you wanted to go to a certain page you could just go to that page instantly as opposed to having to flip around looking for the page.

    The real reason Ebooks won't replace books (if they don't that is) is unless you're an avid reader, or possibly if you travel a lot, an ereader is not really that much more convenient. It's significantly more convenient to carry an mp3 player than a discman and several cd's. However most people only read one book over a several day span and therefore have no problem picking out a book in advance, and have no real desire to have a virtual library always at their fingertips. With music, it only takes a few minutes to listen to a song and I'll be damned if I'm going to pick what I want to listen to in advance like some sort of ipod shuffle owner.
    It'd be nice if they could come up with a better printing medium than paper though, something still biodegradable but doesn't involve trees at all. I know they are mostly using recycled or renewable forest paper nowadays but it'd be nice if the poor things didn't have to die at all.

    What, are you like a vegan or something?

  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    It'd be nice if they could come up with a better printing medium than paper though, something still biodegradable but doesn't involve trees at all. I know they are mostly using recycled or renewable forest paper nowadays but it'd be nice if the poor things didn't have to die at all.

    What, are you like a vegan or something?

    Don't be a silly goose. I still read books now don't I?

    Sheesh, you act like not wanting to destroy something for my own benefit is a character flaw.

    I grew up next to a nature reserve. I like forests and bushland. It's nothing more than that.

    My Dark Souls 2 Diary
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    Daxon wrote: »
    Books >>>>> Reading stuff on a shitty computer screen.

    I don't care if it's super special book paper-imitating screen. It's still shit and has no character in comparison to a book.

    My girlfriend (and her kindle) would disagree with you. E-ink is pretty great, and as much as she reads, a reader is much more convenient than physical books. Really the only drawbacks to e-ink readers (besides the investment and value of the device itself) are that you can't write on the text as you read. Of course, there's no reason that feature can't be implemented.

    I guess by comparison, vinyl sounds better than digital recordings, but people prefer the convenience of mp3's to the quality offered by vinyl (that and almost everything is recorded in digital these days anyways).

    I think things like this really come down to personal taste. Its possible for there to be a market for both.

    Wasn't that movie about David Bowie seducing a 16 year old girl while surrounding himself with monsters and rubbing his balls?

    I don't think it was even a movie, it was just some footage of what Bowie does in his day to day life.
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited February 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    Like I said before, the biggest drawback to an ebook is you can't write in an ebook. Which of course includes underlining, etc. Of course, there's no reason software/hardware can't fix that.
    A couple of Sony e-readers do offer limited highlighting and freehand annotation features. They're not perfect, and certainly don't match up to what you can do with a couple different coloured highlighters or pens, but I've found them pretty handy.

  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yes and there are people who love their physical record collections just as much.

    invalid comparison. Bibliophiles are much more in number and have many more reasons to stick with their format than do vinyl audiophiles.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Sam wrote: »
    Yes and there are people who love their physical record collections just as much.

    invalid comparison. Bibliophiles are much more in number and have many more reasons to stick with their format than do vinyl audiophiles.

    Bibliophiles are much more in number now, but the record has been "obsolete" for generations whereas the book is not yet obsolete.

  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I don't really get the whole page flipping thing, (i haven't played around much with ebooks) though I'd assume if you wanted to go to a certain page you could just go to that page instantly as opposed to having to flip around looking for the page.

    The point is, you don't mark or remember the page number of every single thing. If you need to reference something and you have a rough idea of where it is but didn't remember the exact page number, it's way easier to find it by flipping through the book than skipping pages with buttons.

    This, as well as complex annotations (go visit an English professor or a conscientious English major and observe what their books look like) are the true reason books won't become obsolete. In fact, avid readers are more likely to do their light/pleasure reading on an ebook reader, as opposed to carrying a backpack full of them on a trip.

    yes, such creatures do exist.

  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    Sam wrote: »
    Yes and there are people who love their physical record collections just as much.

    invalid comparison. Bibliophiles are much more in number and have many more reasons to stick with their format than do vinyl audiophiles.

    Bibliophiles are much more in number now, but the record has been "obsolete" for generations whereas the book is not yet obsolete.

    the record only really became obsolete for the general public in the mid 2000s. The nail in the coffin was the mass proliferation of mp3 docks in cars.

    I should've just said audiophiles period actually, because CD and SACD are valued for their sound quality by people who own high end sound equipment. Vinyl audiophiles are a minority within a minority.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I would expect the future would still simply move towards a cheap way to print and bind your eBooks.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Sam wrote: »
    I don't really get the whole page flipping thing, (i haven't played around much with ebooks) though I'd assume if you wanted to go to a certain page you could just go to that page instantly as opposed to having to flip around looking for the page.

    The point is, you don't mark or remember the page number of every single thing. If you need to reference something and you have a rough idea of where it is but didn't remember the exact page number, it's way easier to find it by flipping through the book than skipping pages with buttons.

    This, as well as complex annotations (go visit an English professor or a conscientious English major and observe what their books look like) are the true reason books won't become obsolete. In fact, avid readers are more likely to do their light/pleasure reading on an ebook reader, as opposed to carrying a backpack full of them on a trip.

    yes, such creatures do exist.

    So, your gripe amounts to the fact that it's easier for you remember a page based on page depth rather than number? I think this is one of those things where if the formats change, most people will catch on, but you're kind of being a crotchety grump (yes I know you're probably younger than me).

    I also already said annotations on the text are the biggest disadvantage to e-readers. Still, there's no reason it couldn't be resolved with software/hardware adaptions.
    In fact, avid readers are more likely to do their light/pleasure reading on an ebook reader, as opposed to carrying a backpack full of them on a trip.

    So you agree with me.

  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Intellectual property is just something we came up with to spur art and invention. When it ceases to serve that purpose, we've gone too far.

    People tend to forget this. It's one reason why extending copyright 70-90 years after publication makes no sense.

    I want another Paul's Boutique.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Ultimately, it comes down to how much people appreciate art. No matter how dedicated the artist, they won't, or will be unable, to continue creating their art without financial compensation.

    In the words of the artist; "What would you say, if I walked away? Would you appreciate? But then it'd be too late, 'cause I can only take so much of your ungrateful ways. Everything is never enough."

    Basically, if we don't allow the best artists to at least make a living with their art, they won't, or more likely won't be able to, make a living with their art, and as a result, we won't be able to enjoy it.

  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Ultimately, it comes down to how much people appreciate art. No matter how dedicated the artist, they won't, or will be unable, to continue creating their art without financial compensation.
    ?

    I continue to play video games without financial compensation. Art doesn't have to be the only thing you do. You know, a hobby?

    steam_sig.png
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Elitistb wrote: »
    Ultimately, it comes down to how much people appreciate art. No matter how dedicated the artist, they won't, or will be unable, to continue creating their art without financial compensation.
    ?

    I continue to play video games without financial compensation. Art doesn't have to be the only thing you do. You know, a hobby?

    Are you saying you don't pay for the games you play? Because that's what 'without financial compensation' implies. If so, eventually the studios that create the games you enjoy will have to shut down, and you'll be left without further games.

  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Of course I pay for my games. I don't get paid to play them, however, which is what I was getting at.

    Humans can perform activities for which they only receive personal enjoyment, being my point. An artist can have a day job too.

    Perhaps they won't be earning money doing what they really love to do.

    Welcome to the real world.

    steam_sig.png
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Elitistb wrote: »
    Of course I pay for my games. I don't get paid to play them, however, which is what I was getting at.

    Humans can perform activities for which they only receive personal enjoyment, being my point. An artist can have a day job too.

    Playing a game doesn't make you an artist though. Making the game makes you an artist, which take a LOT more time and resources. My point is that creating art takes time, which isn't something one really has if they're forced to take an additional job out of necessity.

  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Lots of people have hobbies that takes a lot of time and resources. I still fail to see your point.

    steam_sig.png
  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Case in point, I have a friend who makes cars look like cars from movies. He has a very good Ecto-1 (goes to conventions, though it isn't quite the correct model), he has the Knight Rider car complete with everything, he also has a jeep that looks exactly like the jeeps from Jurassic Park.

    He doesn't get paid to do this. It is not cheap either. He could even sell them to recoup some of the costs.

    He does this and has a 40 hour a week job and a wife and 2 kids.

    steam_sig.png
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Elitistb wrote: »
    Lots of people have hobbies that takes a lot of time and resources. I still fail to see your point.

    No offense, but are you a complete silly goose? I'm not talking about enjoying a hobby. I'm talking about creating the material that people enjoy. Typically, creating songs or films or games isn't a hobby, it's a job that requires a lot of time, resources, and support. If you want to listen to music, watch films, or play games, someone has to be paid to create those things, because it's a significant effort on their part.

  • rational vashrational vash Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Elitistb wrote: »
    Case in point, I have a friend who makes cars look like cars from movies. He has a very good Ecto-1 (goes to conventions, though it isn't quite the correct model), he has the Knight Rider car complete with everything, he also has a jeep that looks exactly like the jeeps from Jurassic Park.

    He doesn't get paid to do this. It is not cheap either. He could even sell them to recoup some of the costs.

    He does this and has a 40 hour a week job and a wife and 2 kids.

    I would hazard a guess that your friend spends much less time working on his cars than your average published author spends writing his books.

  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    You would probably be correct. I would also guess that my friend spends less time working on his cars than the average person who makes a living working on cars in that fashion.

    Simply put, just because someone can't make a living solely on an activity does not mean the activity will no longer be performed. If you love to do it, you do it. If an author has a day job, he doesn't stop writing, he just doesn't do it as much. If a painter has a day job, he doesn't stop painting, he just doesn't do it as much.

    steam_sig.png
  • JaentherJaenther Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    And their point was that without financial compensation there won't be as much art/novels. The circle is complete.

    The only workable solution I can think of for novelists is sponsorship, which is not great. Artists have the same fidelity option that movies do, in that even without a reproduction market the original work still has substantial value, as it is unique.

    bone daddy wrote:
    It's important to remember that our userbase is self-selected for people who find things like punching babies and flipping off boxes of kittens hilarious.
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Elitistb, you don't seem to understand the basic argument. Working on cars isn't a widely appreciated artform in the way music or film is. For someone to create quality music or film on a regular basis, it needs to be their source of income. Otherwise, art will become something that comes into being either eradically or not at all.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jaenther wrote: »
    And their point was that without financial compensation there won't be as much art/novels. The circle is complete.

    The only workable solution I can think of for novelists is sponsorship, which is not great. Artists have the same fidelity option that movies do, in that even without a reproduction market the original work still has substantial value, as it is unique.

    The biggest advantage films have right now is their initial presentation, aka the cinema. That's still an experience that can't be created at home, regardless of current tech. Fortunately, that's the artform I'm joining, but I still wish musical artists could expect the same appreciation, as they've been one of my greatest influences.

  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jaenther wrote: »
    And their point was that without financial compensation there won't be as much art/novels. The circle is complete.

    The only workable solution I can think of for novelists is sponsorship, which is not great. Artists have the same fidelity option that movies do, in that even without a reproduction market the original work still has substantial value, as it is unique.

    The biggest advantage films have right now is their initial presentation, aka the cinema. That's still an experience that can't be created at home, regardless of current tech. Fortunately, that's the artform I'm joining, but I still wish musical artists could expect the same appreciation, as they've been one of my greatest influences.

    Live performance is an infinitely more secure method of monetizing IP than cinemas are. Cinema could easily give way to home theater, even after seventy years of cultural relevance. Musical performances, on the other hand, aren't about to be made obsolete by Rock Band.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jaenther wrote: »
    And their point was that without financial compensation there won't be as much art/novels. The circle is complete.

    The only workable solution I can think of for novelists is sponsorship, which is not great. Artists have the same fidelity option that movies do, in that even without a reproduction market the original work still has substantial value, as it is unique.

    The biggest advantage films have right now is their initial presentation, aka the cinema. That's still an experience that can't be created at home, regardless of current tech. Fortunately, that's the artform I'm joining, but I still wish musical artists could expect the same appreciation, as they've been one of my greatest influences.

    Live performance is an infinitely more secure method of monetizing IP than cinemas are. Cinema could easily give way to home theater, even after seventy years of cultural relevance. Musical performances, on the other hand, aren't about to be made obsolete by Rock Band.

    No shit live musical performances aren't about to be rendered obsolete by Rock Band. I never said that though. The cinema experience surely isn't going to be rendered obsolete by the pirated videos that are available during a film's theatracle run though. After all, films cost a lot of money to produce, so either people will continue to fund them, or they're cease to be made. It's simple economics.

  • ClipseClipse Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    It occurs to me that a good way of moving towards reasonable copyright usage would be to force IP holders to choose between two cases:
    Case 1: Legal enforcement of copyright for a certain length (even if it is a long length), provided the IP holder does not encumber the IP with artificial protections which obstruct fair use rights (backups, resale, conversion for compatibility purposes, etc.)
    Case 2: IP holder forgoes legal protection of copyright status, but can employ desired artificial protections.

    This would take a lot of wind out of the sails of anti-copyright people who point to elimination of fair use as anti-consumer and dangerous to the preservation of culture. It also is somewhat analogous to the choice between patent and trade secret legal status for inventions.

Sign In or Register to comment.