Hey, so you know this "space marine" thing?

[Dannyalcatraz]

What I’m getting is a publisher/author releases a book and twenty or thirty years after it has gone out of print they should be considered forfeit on copyright if they haven’t or can’t produce reasonable proof that they are using it. Thus it moves to public domain. I know of very few companies that don’t continue to use their IP in some form. So it wouldn’t be much of an issue except in areas of interest such as ours where games die out from lack of interest.

Unless we are talking about successors in interest to the initial IP creator, I think that is too short a term.

And I realize you're just spitballing, but matters of proof could be sticky, and it is conceivable that different forms of IP might require different time periods.

Then there is the issue of subdivisibility. Consider the estate of any great musician, such as JMH, mentioned above. Would the successors- the heirs/managers of his estate- have to release ALL of the available recordings in the estate in some form during that time period in order to keep any given one from falling into the public domain, or would all the recordings in the estate have their copyright continued if only one track is released?

Or an excerpt of one track?

 

[Morrus]

Yeah. I can leave my house to my kids, all rights to it in it's entirety. But some stuff I write is different?

Some folks build property to make a living. Others build intellectual property to make a living. We don't demand that the family home of the Kennedys be made public property, do we?

Or are we really valuing intellectual creations like than physical ones?

 

[Jhaelen]

Yeah. I can leave my house to my kids, all rights to it in it's entirety. But some stuff I write is different?

I'm not sure to what comment you're replying here exactly, but to me, stating in your will your written works should never be published is similar to leaving a house to your descendants with the caveat that no one shall ever be allowed to live in it. It just strikes me as an utter waste if not a sign of madness.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not sure to what comment you're replying here exactly, but to me, stating in your will your written works should never be published is similar to leaving a house to your descendants with the caveat that no one shall ever be allowed to live in it. It just strikes me as an utter waste if not a sign of madness.

Sure -- but it's mine to waste. I can do that. If I buy a thing, I can destroy that thing. I can have the house knocked down, on account of it being my house. I can have my car crushed. I can waste my property if I want to.

I'm not making the claim that that's always the best decision to make; just that I feel it should be my decision. That I can leave IP to my kids because that's what I built, just like someone can leave a house to their kids, because that's what they built. I don't feel that just because my property, or the stuff I made or bought, has the word "intellectual" in front of it, I should have lesser rights in it than if it didn't.

Not that I have any valuable property - it's all just a vague intellectual exercise to me.

 

[tomBitonti]

Lots of text omitted. See the original posting for the full quoted text!

Apples and oranges. Its the difference between renting an apartment and buying a house: its two similar but very different bundles of rights being transferred from one party to another.

Whoa ... is that so? If it is, I would imagine that many many folks don't realize it. Certainly, purchasing a video (in whatever form) doesn't feel the same as renting an apartment. (And, are the laws about several cases, say: Software licenses, movie or song licenses, apartment rental, auto rental, that much the same?)

IOW, the reason it is allowed is because that is the nature of the contracts we have been agreeing to. If (however unlikely) everyone in the computer market decided they would no longer agree to licensing software & files and instead demanded true sales- and actually stuck to that resolve, refusing to pay for updates to software, getting the latest games, buying the newest hardware, etc.- the companies doing the programming would either have to go with a true sales model or shutter their doors.

See above about "agreeing" to the contracts. Most are unaware. Or if aware, can do little about it, aside from becoming a hermit.

For one thing, the licensing model lets us get things cheaper (short term) than if we buy them.

Also, things that are licensed tend towards more uniformity of quality and functionality than thongs that are sold.

I gotta say: These both need better evidence. They sound more true than perhaps they are.

If I buy a video for $3 from Amazon, with a limited usage license, I've saved a little money for immediately viewing the movie, but at the same time don't have a DVD to lend to friends, and my friend that does the same doesn't have a DVD to lend me.

I'm not convinced that the uniformity of shrink wrap software has much to do with licenses. My understanding is that branding (e.g., McDonalds, Big Macs) very much strives for uniform quality.

Thx!

TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

I may get pummeled for this ...

Not that I agree that Space Marine (TM?) (C?) should be either, but, as a gamer, when I hear "Space Marine", I do think of Games Workshop.

There does get to be a point where a company has created an association with a term through their products and marketing. They've created a brand. What is the best vehicle for brand protection?

Thx!

TomB

 

[billd91]

I may get pummeled for this ...

Not that I agree that Space Marine (TM?) (C?) should be either, but, as a gamer, when I hear "Space Marine", I do think of Games Workshop.

There does get to be a point where a company has created an association with a term through their products and marketing. They've created a brand. What is the best vehicle for brand protection?

Thx!

TomB

When I hear space marine, I think Traveller and Alien.
The best vehicle for protection of their brand is to not rely on common words or something with prior art.

Alternatively, as the disputes between Coca-Cola and other domain name holders demonstrate, you need a massive corporation and vigorous IP lawyers. Coca-Cola may be able to squelch anyone prominently using slang terms for cocaine or even the name of a form of high carbon fuel dating back to the 4th century in their domain names, but that's the power of a massive corporation with deep pockets. GW would be foolish to think they can easily do the same.

 

[Morrus]

I may get pummeled for this ...

Not that I agree that Space Marine (TM?) (C?) should be either, but, as a gamer, when I hear "Space Marine", I do think of Games Workshop.

There does get to be a point where a company has created an association with a term through their products and marketing. They've created a brand. What is the best vehicle for brand protection?

I don't; but I've never played Games Workshop stuff. For me, it's Aliens (although I guess they are "Colonial Marines").

I think the practice of putting "Space" in front of a real-word commonly used noun is pretty common; at least in conversational parlance. My gaming group, while playing Traveller, will frequently say things like 2OK, I guess I'll pull out my Space Credit card" or "Is it time for Space Lunch yet?" to the point that any marine is going to be a "space marine".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not sure to what comment you're replying here exactly, but to me, stating in your will your written works should never be published is similar to leaving a house to your descendants with the caveat that no one shall ever be allowed to live in it. It just strikes me as an utter waste if not a sign of madness.

In most jurisdictions, there is why is called a rule against perpetuity which prevents clauses that impoose infinitely long periods of time on certain conditions from being enforceable in a court of law.

So he couldn't prevent them from selling it "ever", but he could demand they be destroyed after a certain period of time...

 

[Balesir]

Sure -- but it's mine to waste. I can do that. If I buy a thing, I can destroy that thing. I can have the house knocked down, on account of it being my house. I can have my car crushed. I can waste my property if I want to.

I agree with this, but with the "electronic age" there has been a hugely significant shift, because intellectual property is now being routinely disseminated via a system that theoretically gives the purchaser nothing but a license to use the copy they have temporarily, whereas it has hitherto been necessary to sell a physical, tradable copy.

I say "theoretically", here, because in actual fact the user does have a physical copy, albeit on a transient medium, in a form that is trivially and cheaply duplicated. This seems to me like a situation that is set up to create conflicting interests, with a theoretically dominant position for one side that is practically actually incredibly weak, even with the support of the law. That is a disaster waiting to happen - and in some nooks and corners it already is! Basically, a new business model - which will likely require some modification of the law to enable it - is urgently required if we are not to have a situation where IP holders are theoretically all-powerful with their own IP, but practically powerless to stop unauthorised use. This will come about because egregious bullying over IP, such as in the "Space Marines" story, will influence the general public gradually to tolerate "pirates" and other forms of "unlicensed IP use". Basically, the rulebook badly needs to be rewritten so that the rights (and wrongs) of all parties are clarified and we have a standard of conduct that is not set up to defeat itself.