Hi folks and all,

At 10:04 06/04/00 JST, Masataka Ohta wrote:

>Online business patents are, at large, ineffective and harmless.
>We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
>under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
>to make the servers illegal.
>Clients in US may still be a target of a patent, if claims of the
>patents do not cover servers and cover the clients only.
>However, virtually no one can control downloading of software from
>the servers to the clients at home.
>As the Internet is not a collection of private IP networks connected
>by NAT boxes, ISP has no knowledge nor responsibility on what their
>customers are doing.
>It's like copyright, so called, piracy, against which Holywood is
>fighting seemingly in vain.

When some irresponsable companies use copyrights like another marketing mix
element, promoting piracy in promotion and begining agresive campaigns
agains it when everybody use their products, it is very difiicult that
people take seriosly this issue!

It doesn`t not have any sense a system where some people don`t pay
copyrights not because money but to avoid that his friends will call him

With the general crash of protection systems I think that the copyrights
will be mainly driven in indirect way, by charging copyrights royaltties to
hardware products, telephone bills,..., some strong points of indirect way

-It is more just that everibody pay, but is expected that the people that
pay now, pay much less becouse there are more people paying, so that
copyright owners dont use it to get more incomes.

-Telecomunications companies that get big profits thanks to webmasters
work, perhaps will now begin to PAY SOMETHING FOR THEIR WORK!

-Indirect incomes impulse copyrights owners goal of have as much audience
as posible, not limited like now by market ofert demand market decisions,
so in this point is worthy to impulse universal cultural access.

The weaks points that I see are:

-If rooyalties are based only on trafic, developers will increse their
efforts on products driven to the mass, usually with poor intelectual
value, so we will promote that Internet becomes a Huge garbage TV, the
products with hight intelectual value has small audience but it is worthy
to promote them.

-Indirect incomes give everybody equal treatment but there must be
exceptions, i.e. third world people, schools,..., to promote universal
access to the culture.

-Some people will think that is injust to pay royalties on their
telecomunications when they use telecominications service just for
cominicating with other people, so the amount that comes from comunications
between people must go to services to the comunity not to copyrights owners.

The current Internet culture of take things, transform, or not, them and
publish again, have some profits and bad things, like everything, to put
yourself front of culture and say this is not the way, simple does not work
but also donīt get the profits of this culture, so I think that copyright
concept must evolve from the static form, aplieed to finish works, to a
dinamic one for works in evolution, in order to been able to get the
profits of the current culture:

The intelectual work like a work in comun in evolution, evolution that get
that some products incrise their value and other decrease it, and the
market will do the natural selection of them. 

And to avoid the bad things of this culture: 

Mainly that someone gets incomes thanks to other work without reward.

So I think that copyrights will be mainly indiret and dinamic but require
many ajust in order to realy impulse progress, prosperity and culture.


"Where money is the measure of everithing, it will be very dificult that
public matters where driven with justice and life with prosperity" ,
Copyright: Thomas More  ;-)

Reply via email to