--- On Sun, 12/13/09, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Michael <[email protected]>
> the goal is still to increase the content or 'works" available
> to everyone.
>
> I fully support the spirit behind this statement. Too bad
> it doesn't always seem to work out this way, though. :(
In essence that is the reason that IP laws are changing.
I think Alan Greenspan summed it up the best in saying that current IP laws and
practice are based on real estate where "they don't make any more" so the laws
are set up to encourage the owner to make the "highest and best use" of that
fixed resource.
By contrast IP laws should be based on a model where the value (and reward) is
based on increasing the amount of IP available rather than merely rewarding
those who "maximise" the use of what already exists.
This reaches its greatest absurdity when the value of an artist's work soars
when that artist dies! (Michael Jackson comes to mind) This is because the
artist won't be "diluting" the pool of works by producing anything to "compete"
with their existing works!
In his autobiography Greenspan identified this as one of three major
"challenges" the US (and world) economy for the next century!
> In other words content or "works" must be
> considered freely available to
> all unless there is evidence to the contrary.
>
> IANAL, etc...
I have not practised for 15+ years, so my comments must be considered as
general comments only and not related to any particular situation.
> My impression has always been that the way copyright works
> (at least as it works in the U.S.) in broad terms is that
> all rights are reserved unless a use is explicitly allowed
> or given up by the owner of the copyright.
[snip]
Who "licenses" the works of Shakespeare or the Judeo-Christian Bible?
We seem to insist on getting dragged into the minutiae of IP law here.
There are two types of infringement (1) "innocent" infringement and (2)
"wilful" infringement.
The remedy for "innocent" infringement is essentially to stop infringing ASAP -
typically a "cease and desist letter". The cost of this depends entirely on
your situation. If (like Microsoft recently) you have billions of dollars
riding on a new OS release set for next month, then it could be a disaster. On
the other hand if you are an individual using some artwork on your website then
the cost is almost nothing.
"Willful" infringement requires that you knew that the work is restricted. That
is where the big penalties apply. For example if you download an MP3 of some
famous artists latest release, you certainly knew that the work was not "public
domain" (or any equivalent). If you download Bill's Jam session from the corner
pub then things are not nearly so clear cut, especially if Bill is an amateur
who performs for fun.
To bring this back to digital content; Nike, MacDonald's, etc. are very well
recognised trademarks so it would be very hard to argue that you didn't know
about them and that your use was "innocent"!
But how about John Doe's greatest Second Life window blinds?
In that case (absent any other information) if you received it for free and
with no content restrictions then it would be very reasonable to assume that
John Doe had abandoned the content. Especially with the enormous "churn" of SL
participants!
> ...<clip>...
and [snip] :-)
> Patent, Copyright, and Trademark law all share similarities
> and would probably make for a fascinating Venn diagram.
It would make a fascinating study for almost any area of law not just IP law!
Especially since there tend to be totally illogical exceptions for example when
some judge in 1622 decided something should apply to moving a manure pile on a
Thursday then a modern judge applies this to a case involving patents on spy
satellites! (Not totally made up BTW)
As a personal opinion, IP law is far more straightforward than many areas of
law.
For a real treat read the recent US Supreme Court case on the "right to keep
and bear arms". It turns out the original text on which the Second Amendment to
the US Constitution was based concerned allowing conscientious objectors NOT to
be required to carry a gun and join the militia!
> There are definite differences though. For example, a patent
> or trademark must be explicitly filed for, while as I
> mentioned previously, copyright just happens. Since it is a
[snip]
> failing to assert rights can not cause one to lose copyright.
Not always true, but you don't want to read it all.
All the same you MUST assert those rights for anything to happen!
> right or wrong, with or
> without merit, OSgrid and/or OpenSimulator can be slapped
> with a civil suit by some ambulance chasing dingus with
> legal expertise on par with my own.
I can't think of any group who have been as careful about legalities and
non-infringement as the Linux core developers, yet this did not stop the SCO
lawsuits. I leave the rest for alt.conspiracy!
> Safe harbor exemptions
> or not, lawyers will rattle sabers with each other. I'm
> not saying we should be cowering in constant fear, but any
> reasonable policies by OSgrid or OpenSimulator that will
> weaken a false accusation is a good thing. Lawyers cost
> money neither group has, and the quicker they can dismiss it
> the better.
Again I cite the example of SCO/Linux!
BTW the word "reasonable" has probably occupied more lawyers in more man-years
of debate than any other word I can think of!
> Otherwise it will drag the developers, grid
> admins, their supporters and users into a time wasting black
> hole of hell better spent coding, testing, and improving the
> platform.
I agree 100% here, and this is essentially why IP reform is so badly needed. I
have no illusions that OpenSim will be the vehicle to make that happen though,
nor that the most restrictive of rules will affect this in any way except to
accomplish the same thing.
The whole SCO/Linux/Microsoft episode is well known today, but compared to some
of the building of the trusts like Standard Oil in the 19th century it is
downright friendly!
> That's my worry, anyway, and I find it no
> wonder that Adam errs on the side of caution. I don't
> blame him one bit.
When Adam is speaking for OSGrid and "official" endorsement by
Opensimulator.org then I too agree here.
What I want to avoid is the situation that has arisen with Poser and similar 3D
modelling systems where a user needs to spend significant time (in my case
almost 50%!) hunting for obscure repositories of content (both free and paid
for) due to conflicting ideas of what is "legal" or "moral" to include or even
to talk about. Sadly it is often easiest to get such content via underground
P2P rather than through legitimate channels!
I am not advocating a "PirateBay" approach of "we will post whatever we
please", rather that an index with links to legitimate repositories is
maintained without necessarily endorsing everything those repositories contain.
Different users have different needs and different constraints. Not everyone
will spend $1M to remove or replace content that they reasonably thought was
free to distribute.
Karen
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
