Software Should Not Be Copyrighted -- Lawsuit

I think that to retain the protections of a copyright, you should be forced to keep the protected property comercially available. Copyrights are to protect your economic interest in something, not to remove useful ideas or information from the public. So if you don't make it available to the public at market prices, after so long (5 years?) it should devolve into public domain.

This would expecially be useful for software. If you don't sell a program for 5 years, it becomes public domain and people can use it/download it/share it. Has some interesting implications for the recording and movie industries too.

So if we discontinue a product it should just become free to everyone? I don't think so.

Reply #3 By: Citizen Genghis Hank - 12/14/2004 3:59:11 PM Reply #2 By: Draginol - 12/14/2004 2:56:49 PM So if we discontinue a product it should just become free to everyone? I don't think so. Not right away, but if you aren't going to sell it or support it anymore, why not? What value does it have sitting on a server someplace unused? 5 years is a long time for software, but that's just a number I picked. What if it was 10? Edit: I also may not have made it clear. I am suggesting x years from the time it is discontinued, not from release.

Actually I very much like Hank's idea. It seems dead on. If someone discontinues a product, it should become orphanware, and after a reasonable period of time, it should be fair use and public domain material. That would keep companies supporting their products, or let them revert back to public domain when support is gone.

I'd allow for grandfathering in prior versions of software so that companies could maintain their patents/copyrights if they keep producing new versions of the same product line, but once a line was discontinued, from that point on the clock starts and after 5 - 10 years, the product becomes public domain and fair use for all.

That protects the copyright holder during their support period for the product, but balances out the publics eventual fair use of the product once it becomes orphan ware.

Reply #2 By: Draginol - 12/14/2004 2:56:49 PM So if we discontinue a product it should just become free to everyone? I don't think so.

Not right away, but if you aren't going to sell it or support it anymore, why not? What value does it have sitting on a server someplace unused? 5 years is a long time for software, but that's just a number I picked. What if it was 10? Edit: I also may not have made it clear. I am suggesting x years from the time it is discontinued, not from release.

This should be interesting. In this corner we have Draginol the developer and owner of copyrighted software and in the other corner we have the anti-copyright group. Let's get ready to rrrrrrrrrrrrumble.

Okay that was lame.

We have an opportunity here to hear the opinion of a software developer on software copyrights and patents. This is a highly heated ongoing debate between IP owners and those who believe we all lose "knowledge" when a copyright is left to linger, but is not allowed to fall into the public domain.

I'm in the middle on this one, but I do think something has to be done. I sort of agree with GH's idea, but it should not be x years after a product is discontinued, but maybe x years after a product is "dead." By dead I mean that the copyright holder has no intention of further supporting the product, putting out new versions, or using the name.

In other words should "Snark Shoot" be considered public domain? Even though it was dead out of the water? If the IP is still being used; "Snark Shoot 3," "Snark Town," or other derived works then I say no. The IP is still being used and expanded upon. Now take Nintendo's "Kid Icarus" which hasn't been seen nor heard from since the 1980s, I feel that since Nintendo has no known plans (I could be wrong) then "Kid Icarus" should eventually become public domain.


None of this extending a copyright without using it that we currently have. You must be currently using the IP to keep the copyright. This would keep Disney happy as well as the public domain.

I didn't mean to turn this into a copyright in general thing, but I did.

Software is difficult enough to protect commecially already! Why make it easier to steal other folks work?

There may be something to consider regarding add-on products here (mods) especially since the modding community tends to thrash the crap out of the original dev's work anyway. Might force software house to actually continue development for profit on their own.

If a product is created then those who create should have protection. Even if Nintendo does not plan to use Kid Icarus, the ideas in Kid Icarus may have been used to create other games. The move to make it unprotected is put forth by those who want something for nothing. Very Chinese concept.

Reply #8 By: Moderator Draginol - 12/14/2004 11:10:25 PM Reply #2 By: Draginol - 12/14/2004 2:56:49 PM So if we discontinue a product it should just become free to everyone? I don't think so. Not right away, but if you aren't going to sell it or support it anymore, why not? What value does it have sitting on a server someplace unused? 5 years is a long time for software, but that's just a number I picked. What if it was 10? Edit: I also may not have made it clear. I am suggesting x years from the time it is discontinued, not from release. Why not? Because if I make something, it's mine. If you're not using some of your furniture, should the government be able to come in and take it away after 5 years? People who make things should have the right to control that thing. If I make a piece of software and I choose to discontinue that should be the end of story. I made it, it belongs to me.

I disagree, and in many cases, so has the government. Example, a home that is abandoned is eventually confiscated by the government (condemned or similarly) and then can be "rehabilitated" through sale to a new owner.

There are similar examples, but basically after a while your right to control your object should be over-riden in favor of the greater good and the chance that someone can improve upon your work, modify it, update it, and make it more useful than it was.

You should know that there are thousands of old games, and other software, that all could serve as the basis for newer, updated games, and yet we can't have them because companies like EA or Atari or others control the rights to them, even though some of those companies (Activision and others along the way) may be out of business.

We have to balance it out so all sides interests are served, not simply those of the content creators.

Reply #8 By: Moderator Draginol - 12/14/2004 11:10:25 PM Reply #2 By: Draginol - 12/14/2004 2:56:49 PM So if we discontinue a product it should just become free to everyone? I don't think so. Not right away, but if you aren't going to sell it or support it anymore, why not? What value does it have sitting on a server someplace unused? 5 years is a long time for software, but that's just a number I picked. What if it was 10? Edit: I also may not have made it clear. I am suggesting x years from the time it is discontinued, not from release. Why not? Because if I make something, it's mine. If you're not using some of your furniture, should the government be able to come in and take it away after 5 years? People who make things should have the right to control that thing. If I make a piece of software and I choose to discontinue that should be the end of story. I made it, it belongs to me.

I disagree, and in many cases, so has the government. Example, a home that is abandoned is eventually confiscated by the government (condemned or similarly) and then can be "rehabilitated" through sale to a new owner.

There are similar examples, but basically after a while your right to control your object should be over-riden in favor of the greater good and the chance that someone can improve upon your work, modify it, update it, and make it more useful than it was.

You should know that there are thousands of old games, and other software, that all could serve as the basis for newer, updated games, and yet we can't have them because companies like EA or Atari or others control the rights to them, even though some of those companies (Activision and others along the way) may be out of business.

We have to balance it out so all sides interests are served, not simply those of the content creators.

Reply #2 By: Draginol - 12/14/2004 2:56:49 PM So if we discontinue a product it should just become free to everyone? I don't think so. Not right away, but if you aren't going to sell it or support it anymore, why not? What value does it have sitting on a server someplace unused? 5 years is a long time for software, but that's just a number I picked. What if it was 10? Edit: I also may not have made it clear. I am suggesting x years from the time it is discontinued, not from release.

Why not? Because if I make something, it's mine. 

If you're not using some of your furniture, should the government be able to come in and take it away after 5 years?

People who make things should have the right to control that thing.  If I make a piece of software and I choose to discontinue that should be the end of story. I made it, it belongs to me. 

Applying Patents to software is not the way to go.

This would give control of all software to a few companies who has been filling patent on Software.

Imagine giving a patent to Mills and Bone for a romance novel.
No one else can ever write a romance novel without paying them.

Write an article on joeuser about your love life. Sorry pay Mills and Bone 1cent per word.

Copyright law is the way to protect software.
You can argue about the recent changes to copyright law but it is still the best way to protect the time and investment spend in producing software.

Copyright law is also the foundation of many open source licenses.

Applying copyright law maybe complex but its is fairly easy to show when someone has stolen that peice of code.

With patent law and our current patent systems even if you independently create a peice of software if someone has patented the idea behind the software then you can still be sued for patent infringement.

Just look at some of the recent patent lawsuits. Most of the the ideas patented are broad and are usually not novel. Some stand up in court others do not.

The only ones who win are the patent lawyers.

Oh who filed this suit. You guessed it. A patent lawyer.

Just though I would add a follow on.

Writing code is very like writing music and writing a novel. Code is an expression of an idea and should be covered by copyright. While I disagree with the recent changes to the copyright law I still think it gives protection to all softare developers both big and small.

Patents are a monopoly on an novel idea. You get the right to the idea for a fixed period of time. They are suppose to help spread ideas because you must publish the details about the idea.

Software Patents protect large companies who can afford to hire Patent Lawyers and actually stifle competition. 20 years is a long time in the Software industry.

Interesting link on Software Patents

http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html

I think that to retain the protections of a copyright, you should be forced to keep the protected property comercially available. Copyrights are to protect your economic interest in something, not to remove useful ideas or information from the public. So if you don't make it available to the public at market prices, after so long (5 years?) it should devolve into public domain.

What about those that people that publish their poetry on Poetry.com or some site, and that site goes down, and they don't publish it for another ten years. Do they lose their right to ownership too?

You should know that there are thousands of old games, and other software, that all could serve as the basis for newer, updated games, and yet we can't have them because companies like EA or Atari or others control the rights to them, even though some of those companies (Activision and others along the way) may be out of business.

I just want to mention that Atari does still keep their old games in circulation (i.e. those collections, sequels (i.e. new Asteroids on PS1), etc.), so most of their games wouldn't be in the public domain.

I'm all for copyright on software.

Remember that it's only the code that is copyrighted not the concept which you used the code to express. So MOO1 code is copyrighted, but Stardock can happily use any ideas it liked from that game in GC1 or GC2, so long as it writes new code to implement those ideas. MOO1 however belongs to owners can no one else can ever re-release that game and make money from it.

Patents in software are a more complex area though and one which I generally disagree with. You cannot patent an idea or a mathematical construct which blocks the majority of areas in software that you may want to patent. You can only patent an implementation. The question then is how do you protect your business if it is founded on software code (eg. a zip algorithm)?

Paul.

The furnature analogy I'm afraid doesn't hold up. If you make a chair, and have the "copyright" on it, you are in effect making it illegal for me to own a chair - at least a chair that looks like yours. If I can't buy one from you, I still want to be able to sit!

Let's try this another way. What if somebody (we'll use Bill Gates because he's rich and fun to pick on) decided to rid the world of Beatles music. He goes out and buys the rights to all the Beatles songs and locks them away. Nobody can ever sing them again, record them again, listen to them again. All gone! Anyone who tries can be arrested for IP theft. Is this in the public interest?

Now a slightly more real life scenerio. Company A and B both have some nitch market software. A user has a computer and the software from company A. Company B buys company A and informs all the users of product A that they will no longer sell or support the product. Buy our software instead. Well, our user is quite happy with program A and needs features that aren't in product B. But his computer crashes and he has to get a new one that the old version of program A won't run on. What does he do? He is forced to buy program B but that program doesn't do what he needs. So he now has to hire someone to write a whole new custom program? Well, in the real world, he goes to ebay and buys a used computer so he can keep using program A.

I don't want to take a nickel away from those who produce IP for a living. I make my living from the industry created around that IP. But I can tell you that my clients are fed up with the notion that they have to throw everything away every three years and buy all new stuff just because some software juggernaut want to increase their bottom line.

Let's try this another way. What if somebody (we'll use Bill Gates because he's rich and fun to pick on) decided to rid the world of Beatles music. He goes out and buys the rights to all the Beatles songs and locks them away. Nobody can ever sing them again, record them again, listen to them again. All gone! Anyone who tries can be arrested for IP theft. Is this in the public interest?

That'd be quite a pain, but it his property, and he has every right to do what he wants with it. Now what about my example? Should a girl who published her poem on a small site or book once ten years ago lose all rights to that poem if she hasn't published it again since then and the book is no longer for sale or the site is no longer up?

Now what about my example? Should a girl who published her poem on a small site or book once ten years ago lose all rights to that poem if she hasn't published it again since then and the book is no longer for sale or the site is no longer up?

I don't know. Maybe this is an example of why software shouldn't be treated under the law as the same thing as poetry.

I think that the software should become 'freeware' after certain years, maybe something like 10 years. But any characters in it should be copyrighted pretty much same way as any art.

In technical terms currently, downloading a very old computer game or ROM file of a old console game is illegal, but that's basically the only way some of those games will survive the destruction of the media it was in.

I see most replies looking at it from packaged software.
No matter what protection software receives it will not suddenly make old software 'public domain' after a certain number of years.

Do not confuse copyright law and patent law with end user agreements and the terms that you agree to when you buy a software package.

Copyright law deals with copying. It basically says if you create something then you have some rights to what you have created and someone cannot take your work, copy it , modify it or use it without your permission. There are various test for similarity that courts recognise so something like a 'hello world'
program contains no copyrightable material.

Patent law deals with ideas. You do not have to implement the idea. You just need to describe the idea in detail as part of the patent application.
Now no one else can create anything using that idea without your permission.
For a patent to be accepted the idea must be unique and novel.
Currently the patent system is broken because a large number of patents have been issued for ideas that are not unique or novel.

People who don't write software may not understand that software, just like writing a book or a poem is a creative endeavor.

Software should be treated the same as other copyrighted material. Peroid.

Even to point of some of software going extinct? For example, I support ROM ripping IF game is well past selling point, like Atari and NES consoles.

There is many Atari games and NES games that has no hard copy extant now.

People who don't write software may not understand that software, just like writing a book or a poem is a creative endeavor. Software should be treated the same as other copyrighted material. Peroid.

I disagree with that a little. If you wrote a button control, and I wrote my own, did I violate your copyright? Not really, since button is such a basic concept. If someone else makes a super-button that work much better than both of our button, well hooray and more money and power to that person. I agree if for example, I decompiled your button control and made little changes and made it my own. That would be code copyright violation.

Patent law deals with ideas. You do not have to implement the idea.

Not actually true. You must prove that the idea is workable and this usually requires working models before final patent approval. So for example, you cannot patent the idea of teleportation. You could describe in great detail how it would work, but unless you can prove the concept the patent is not worth the paper it is written on. The patent may actually be granted as (depending on the country) its not up to the patent office to enfore this requirement. Many people hold patents which they later discover are worthless because of this issue. Many patent lawyers also fail to inform clients of this requirement. I have had to challenge opposing patents and invalidate them on numerous occasions now , and showing that the initial patent had not provided proof of concept is the easiest way to do this.

Paul.

Even to point of some of software going extinct? For example, I support ROM ripping IF game is well past selling point, like Atari and NES consoles.

Those are binaries though, not the source code. Those are a different matter. Also, the Atari games are all coming out now on those controllers that emulate the Atari system. There's one coming out now with 80 of the old Atari games. So you can make older games/software available without having to lose your copyright protection.

Also, even if you had the code for those games, I suspect that it would do you (or anyone) much good. Hardware has changed drastically even in the last 10 years, and so code written 10 years ago is very different from code we right today. I would even go as far as to argue that reading old code could be harmful to people learning how to code because they would pick up things that are now bad practices. Even if you try to write code so that it can be reused for many years, you can't predict what will change and so rather than trying to write code that will never have to change, you should try to write code that can be updated easily.

Indeed. I was talking about preservation of original games. I'm not exactly worried about source code.

There is many Atari games and NES games that has no hard copy extant now.

Like I said, some games have been saved from going totally extinct.

Also, the Atari games are all coming out now on those controllers that emulate the Atari system.

Yeah. My friend bought one for Xbox and it's fun.