[Ogf-l] Copyright and Patent Cases (long)

[Githianki]

[[[Quote: > >1) the average person seems to be beginning to doubt the value of IP laws > As for #1, "average people" want what ever they can get for the cheapest price, or free. They love Napster. But before Napster, it was still not legal to make copies of CDs for you pals. The average person knew that, they just dont like it. The average person doesnt mind jacking the value off of a CD, but they would question having to produce and give away CDs (hard, physical objects) for free, especially if they had to do the work and take the loss themselves. Dont mistake the desires of the average person for a competitive marketplace -- they arent the same thing. --Lynn ]]]End Quote. I am not sure how that refutes #1.       Clearly people not liking something means that they doubt its value.   Especially, not liking something to the point of ignoring it. The fact that increasing numbers of people are violating the IP laws, means that they would rather they not apply.  Perhaps, you are confusing the double standard people place on their own actions as opposed to those of others.  The only practical measure however, is what action each individual takes, not what they wish everyone else did.  Therefore, even though people might claim that IP laws are a good thing for others or even themselves, it doesn't mean anything if they are unwilling to apply those same standards to themselves.       Anyone who produces something (in a manner which requires the expenditure of resources) takes a risk that others will not find their work of value.  This is free market economics.  No one is "forced" to spend money on production costs with no promise of reward.  But a promise is just that, a promise. There is no guarantee of reward. IP laws make no guarantee of reward.  They simply state that under certain circumstances the first rewards shall go to the first producer.       It is my observation that people are seriously questioning the IP laws because the duration of this "first" reward is growing so long.  This is what I meant by average people questioning IP laws.  It is not the premise that people find so offensive, but the idea that IP laws mean the only or eternal rewards go to the "originator."       Furthermore, average people consitute the marketplace, so to divorce the average person's perceptions and the marketplace's is flawed. If the marketplace is taking goods without compensation then there is clearly a trend towards viewing mandated compensation as undesirable or at the very least, the trend to grant too much compensation is undesirable.         What really has made this such an issue is that technology has enabled the rapid dissemination of an idea and that many ideas have limited forms of useful expression.  When millions more people can see how to put something to use in a way that is valuable to them, they begin to question why they should not be able to do so sooner rather than later.  Profit making ability comes from the ability to RESTRICT the distribution of new ideas.  Previously this was taken care of by nature, then inefficient production and economic means. Since technology has eliminated so many of these restrictions, profit making is more diffilcult unless artificial means of restriction are imposed, hence IP laws, and the cries from profit minded individuals to strengthen them.   The competitive marketplace doesn't include just those trying to make a buck, it includes everyone who has any interest in an idea at all, which includes the average people too; some of whom wonder why anyone should have a right to profit by restriction.  Questions some are asking are: (you being the originator) 1)Why should you be entitled to make any profit? 2)Why should you be entitled to make a profit as opposed to someone else making a profit? 3)Why should you be entitled to make such an exclusive product for x duration? ------------- I totally agree with Ryan's copyright trend analysis except that I see a counter movement against that very trend building, which is why I wanted to see what people thought might happen as two worlds collide.  There are both companies and individuals on both sides of this issue so don't assume it is a corporate versus consumer thing because many producers are also consumers somewhere else in the chain. With this in mind... ------------- [[[Quote Ryan: I think you confuse "angry kids who can't get their free music" with "serious movements against the IP laws".� If anything, the last five years have seen a stengthening of the copyright interest rather than a dilution of it.� The Sonny Bono act which extended copyright for an additional term of years, and the DMCA which provides whole new protections for the owners of copyrights in the digital environment are just two highly visible such issues.� The litigation around the DeCSS program is another such indicator. ]]] End Quote. When I mentioned Copyright and Patent cases pending, I wasn't thinking about Napster and I certainly wasn't confusing "angry kids" with "serious movements". I was thinking about specific cases which might result in the overturning of many or most or the recent IP laws and decisions enacted over the few decades. The fact that laws have strengthened is irrelevant if the result is a backlash (which is what Napster is symptomatic of).  The trend I see therefore runs directly counter to the one Ryan sees where IP holders will continue to gain increasing amounts of protections.  Since the RPG industry is one in which there are a lot of questions regarding IP, I wonder if the OGL, which is based on certain IP law assumptions continuing to be in effect, will have relevance down the road should such laws be drastically modified.  It is about this longer term trend that I ask "Has anyone thought about this?"  Maybe the answer is that the counter-IP trend doesn't have enough of a profile to warrant thought, but I would think it does. [BTW I think dismissing the whole Napster issue as "angry kids who can't get their free music" is way off base.  Napster use spread far beyond college campuses (wonder if you felt like a kid in college :) ) once it started getting mainstream media attention, and it is at heart about what rights individuals had/have with regard to music they have paid for once.  Pointing to the illegal abuses simply clouds the more important issues it raised.   Doing that is like blaming deviant behavior on playing Doom.] A really good link on multiple copyright issues regarding music (and maybe with some small relevance to thr RPG industry) is: http://www.kohnmusic.com/articles/newprimer.html       Ryan has pointed out that the OGL serves to force people to grant the same rights that they have been claiming but unethically denying to others, thereby erasing the hypocrisy.  What I ask is how can such a device ultimately succeed if the very concept of IP laws, on which the OGL is based, and which laws stem from mutual respect of individual expression, are brought into question? as I clearly see being done, not just in court but in forums of public discussion.  It may not be the foremost topic but it is being discussed. *********** As for some other comments made on this topic: >The OGL is more valuable to non-commercial interests than commercial >interests because it doesn't have any associated fees or royalties.� A >commercial publisher could pay for a license with associated costs, and if >the only way the D&D system could be used was in a for-pay system, creation >and distribution of compatible materials would be restricted to those >commercial interests willing to pay for the privilige.       I think this is comparing apples and oranges. Neither commercial nor non-commercial interests have to pay a royalty or fee, so neither has and advantage on that score. That would only happen if some publishers could do, without a fee, what others had to pay a fee for. The fact that a given publisher might be able to afford a fee doesn't mean it has gained an advantage unless someone else was forced to pay it and they were not. Everyone has gained market access for free so no "side" can have gained a fee value advantage over the other.                If the costs associated with the use of the OGL represent an "opportunity cost" to legally serve a market you could not serve otherwise, then I think that clearly a commercial endeavour has a better chance of recouping that "opportunity cost". Since everyone who enters the OGL market has to pay the same "opportunity costs" though, and there is no legal alternative market, then it is safe to say no one has an advantage over anyone else.         I realize this refutes a lot of what I posted earlier about commercial users of the OGl having an advantage over non-commercial users, but I realize now that this is an issue of economics.  I suspect that many would like to see open access to material for non-commercial purposes without any "opportunity costs" such as the OGL presents.  But, that becomes embroiled once again in the nature of IP laws and rights to "potential" profits.  ( I hear the echoes of software pirates who say "I wasn't going to buy that anyway" here.) ---------- >If you don't think that the RIAA didn't get a "clear benefit" by shutting >down Napster, you're not paying attention to the >TWO BILLION DOLLARS< >Napster offered in capitulation to continue to operate the service.� Since >the RIAA turned Napster down on that offer, they clearly think the exclusive >right to make digital copies of music available to the public is worth more >than TWO BILLION DOLLARS. >I assure you that the RIAA hasn't spent two billion dollars on litigation.    Has Napster been shut down? (I ask because I don't know, all I have heard are delays in enacting the injunction.) Just because Napster may have offered 2 Billion doesn't mean that is a concession that they believe the RIAA is right.  Surely you know better than that.  Perhaps I should have said some companies aren't seeing clear cut benefits.  RIAA isn't a company anyway and I don't even think the RIAA realizes what they are doing half the time, as they are arguing completely opposite points in some cases. Certainly the companies that make up the RIAA have seriously considered the damage that can be done by taking an adversarial stance towards potential customers. Simply recieving money (no matter how much) does not automatically mean the money is a clear cut benefit. To me a clear cut benefit is one which has no downside. 2 billion is a whopping sum but that doesn't mean it is a clear cut benefit just because you are impressed by it. They turned it down so I guess they weren't impressed either.   You imply that if the amount spent on litigation is less than the reward the difference is a clear cut benefit.  Huh? Again that is only if there is no other downside.   Since the lawyers' fees will come from any reward (and are likely scaled to it)  the amount spent up to now is really unimportant and has no bearing on whether the end result of the case results in true rewards to the RIAA. ------------- >> Even though it is supposed to reduce the likelihood >> of litigation and enable more sharing of resources we have seen >> recommendations that people stick to creating all new material as opposed >> to >> reusing some. > >I don't consider the angry squawks of people on the fringe who have no >personal stake in the matter to be all that compelling. > >People are already using and re-using Open Game Content all over the >internet and in commercial paper products as well.� As I mentioned in >another thread, this theory that re-use won't happen has been tested, and >found false already.� It's a non-issue. Not all of the people I have seen post recommending avoiding using the original OGC contributions of others (and simply sticking to the SRD) struck me as squawking fringers. I think some even had a personal stake in the matter though I really don't see how that is relevant.  This board has shown how confusing the OGL can be even for people who have been dealing with it for a long time.  What happens when it hits a critical mass and the attempted correct use of it spreads faster than explanations and monitoring can keep up?  I know you hate doom and gloom, but my point was that if people get fed up with IP laws and legal stuff (and there is evidence this is occuring in many fields) then how does the OGL as it is presented now stand to make things any clearer or better?  Almost everyone on this list agrees it is better and a great and noble thing, but how do people forsee spreading the use of it in a manner which does not simply add to the IP clutter that lurks in the background now (in music, in software, in digital broadcatsing, etc.)? -Alex Silva