Copyright Ruling

[Guest zzmikezz]

I can only assume there are some-even on this board from evidence-that even if the Bible was copyrighted by God would still pirate it with a multitude of justifications.

I'm a lot older than most people around here. One of the things I've witnessed during my adult life is the death of the concept of ethics -- that a particular behavior might be unacceptable even if it's perfectly legal. In other words, in too many people the sense of right-versus-wrong has been replaced by "what can I get away with"?The death of ethics has been accompanied by the death of the sense of shame, as in "and if I can get away with it, I might as well flaunt it because maybe there'll be some (money) (fame) (peer group approval) (whatever) in it for me".This isn't just the old generation disapproving of the next generation, which has been true for 200,000 years, most likely. No, we are witnessing the death of Western civilization. The Barbarians didn't break down the gates of Rome, they simply walked through them, the gates having been opened and left open by Romans who no longer felt that their lives and property and way of life were worth preserving and therefore worth defending.EDIT: Coming back down from 35,000 feet, the wishes of authors should be respected regardless of the state of copyright law. To do otherwise is to be a thief, something like picking the pockets of an unconcsious accident victim found lying in the street.

[Geofa 108]

I'm a lot older than most people around here. One of the things I've witnessed during my adult life is the death of the concept of ethics -- that a particular behavior might be unacceptable even if it's perfectly legal. In other words, in too many people the sense of right-versus-wrong has been replaced by "what can I get away with"?The death of ethics has been accompanied by the death of the sense of shame, as in "and if I can get away with it, I might as well flaunt it because maybe there'll be some (money) (fame) (peer group approval) (whatever) in it for me".This isn't just the old generation disapproving of the next generation, which has been true for 200,000 years, most likely. No, we are witnessing the death of Western civilization. The Barbarians didn't break down the gates of Rome, they simply walked through them, the gates having been opened and left open by Romans who no longer felt that their lives and property and way of life were worth preserving and therefore worth defending.

Intesting Mike--how many of these young people with their "new" perspective have studied the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons?The same mistakes are all there a couple thousand years ago-but let's go there and revisit them all again just for fun... :(

[Peter Clemenko 0]

I'm a lot older than most people around here. One of the things I've witnessed during my adult life is the death of the concept of ethics -- that a particular behavior might be unacceptable even if it's perfectly legal. In other words, in too many people the sense of right-versus-wrong has been replaced by "what can I get away with"?The death of ethics has been accompanied by the death of the sense of shame, as in "and if I can get away with it, I might as well flaunt it because maybe there'll be some (money) (fame) (peer group approval) (whatever) in it for me".This isn't just the old generation disapproving of the next generation, which has been true for 200,000 years, most likely. No, we are witnessing the death of Western civilization. The Barbarians didn't break down the gates of Rome, they simply walked through them, the gates having been opened and left open by Romans who no longer felt that their lives and property and way of life were worth preserving and therefore worth defending.

This isn't so much the death of western civilization, as it is the birth of a completely new type of civilization. What we are actually facing here is the culmination of the birth and spread of the internet. We are no longer looking at east verses west, it is now a case of the whole of humanity. In a way, I don't feel bad about the death of western civilization, because western civilization will be replaced by a global community, east and west. Times are changing, and those of us who are younger will eventually see a time where the internet will herald in a more unified world populace. The old school days of east verses west, are dying, because of easier exposure to other societies. There is a quote from a movie I think may help you understand what I'm talking about."The net truly is vast and infinite, who knows, maybe a new society that we never even dreamed of is being born." ~ Motoko Kusanagi, Ghost in the Shell: Solid State SocietyThe reality is, you are looking at a major shift in society, a shift from a localized group of people, only considering their own world view, to a global, and more unified society. East and west are merging, thanks to the internet and a more open youth. In a way, western society is falling, however it is being replaced by a more unified human society.And no, the death of morality isn't happening, nor is the death of shame, what you are seeing is something that existed all along. The entire time, these emotions, these actions, have been bottled up in everyone, now that the internet exists, we are facing a situation of people being more willing to open up their true feelings. These problems have always existed, they are only now more visible because of the relay of information at a much higher rate.

[Guest zzmikezz]

This isn't so much the death of western civilization, as it is the birth of a completely new type of civilization.

That's exactly my point. You're assuming that the change is for the better but you're wrong, so very very wrong. I don't recall who said this originally (Trotsky, I think) but it's worth repeating: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."The technological change brought about by the internet is a good thing and yes, it's revolutionizing society. But that's not the same thing as the obvious death of morality, which has been going on since long before there was an internet. In the absence of modern communications the death of our civilization would take a different form, but the disease itself -- moral decay -- is fatal. It doesn't matter which vital organ is the first to fail, death here is inevitable given the attitudes of all too many people today.Geofa is right -- you need to read Gibbons.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

That's exactly my point. You're assuming that the change is for the better but you're wrong, so very very wrong. I don't recall who said this originally (Trotsky, I think) but it's worth repeating: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

Except for this, a more unified world population will reduce wars, it will reduce conflict, because people who have access to the internet, will be much more willing to expand their horizons, and be able to understand the other persons plight. In a way, war is going to be reduced because we will have a much more understanding group of leaders on our hands. How many wars have started because of disagreements and cultural differences, how many wars have been started because of leaders misconstruing the state run media. In reality, the internet, is a method of spreading information at a rate which will prevent war in general. In a way, we are looking at a situation where the world will be more understanding. Remember this however, even if we are not wanting to fight wars, we will be ready, as even if someone doesn't want to fight a war, history shows that you always need to be ready. And our future leaders will have to be knowledgeable of history to be able to avert disaster.

[Guest zzmikezz]

Except for this, a more unified world population will reduce wars, it will reduce conflict, because people who have access to the internet, will be much more willing to expand their horizons, and be able to understand the other persons plight.

I'm not coming for you, Peter, but they are, and they don't give a rodent's rear what you believe. They care only that it's different from what they believe.No, I'm not going to define "they". Again, read Gibbons or suffer the consequences.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

I'm not coming for you, Peter, but they are, and they don't give a rodent's rear what you believe. They care only that it's different from what they believe.No, I'm not going to define "they". Again, read Gibbons or suffer the consequences.

It's that old school fear mongering that is being out dated by society... The reality is changing, the reality is much different than what you think it is. The main reason that rome fell the way it did is because of the fact that something like the internet did NOT exist. The world has changed in a way which can avert that... The internet is changing society in a way which will prevent the same exact situation from happening again.Watch Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, and the Ghost in the Shell movies, that will help you see what people like me see the actual future as becoming.The "They" are coming for you argument is something which is just used by those in power to try and fear-monger the people. If you want the truth, you must seek it... If the world was not as technologically advanced as it is now, we could face a very similar situation to Rome, however what we will actually most likely see is something more akin to Ghost in the Shell and eventually Star Trek.Yes, America is on the brink as we speak, however it has one of two ways of going down, Rome style, or more of a cyberpunk method. I personally believe it will go more toward cyberpunk than anything else.

[mgh 89]

Getting back to the original point, I don't see what is wrong with the UK Court of Appeal's judgement. It ruled that:1 - Plastic toy models of storm trooper helmets featured in the Star Wars films were not sculptures for the purposes of the UK Copyright Design and Patents Act 1986 and their maker was entitled to a defence under section 51 of that Act on the basis that it was not a copyright infringement to copy an article made to a design. (Under UK law the helmets were designs and not copyright. The period of protection for designs is shorter than for copyright and had already expired)2 - Breaches of US copyright by the defendants were not justiciable in England, being essentially local matters to be determined by local courts. (This seems obvious - courts in one country can't be expected to apply the local laws of another country.)3 - The fact that the defendants' products were advertised and sold on the internet did not give it a presence in the US which would make possible the enforcement of a judgment against him in California. (It's long been recognised that the merely selling goods from country A into country B did not amount to the presence of the seller in country B. The court found that selling over the internet was not fundamentally different from selling by advertisements, salesmen, the post, telephone, telex etc, currently used to sell goods abroad.)If the court had ruled otherwise it would have meant that anyone selling goods over the internet could be sued in any court in any country in the world and have that foreign judgement enforced by his home courts. Does anyone really want to be in that situation? I 'm sure FS add-on developers don't!

[Peter Clemenko 0]

Getting back to the original point, I don't see what is wrong with the UK Court of Appeal's judgement. It ruled that:1 - Plastic toy models of storm trooper helmets featured in the Star Wars films were not sculptures for the purposes of the UK Copyright Design and Patents Act 1986 and their maker was entitled to a defence under section 51 of that Act on the basis that it was not a copyright infringement to copy an article made to a design. (Under UK law the helmets were designs and not copyright. The period of protection for designs is shorter than for copyright and had already expired)2 - Breaches of US copyright by the defendants were not justiciable in England, being essentially local matters to be determined by local courts. (This seems obvious - courts in one country can't be expected to apply the local laws of another country.)3 - The fact that the defendants' products were advertised and sold on the internet did not give it a presence in the US which would make possible the enforcement of a judgment against him in California. (It's long been recognised that the merely selling goods from country A into country B did not amount to the presence of the seller in country B. The court found that selling over the internet was not fundamentally different from selling by advertisements, salesmen, the post, telephone, telex etc, currently used to sell goods abroad.)If the court had ruled otherwise it would have meant that anyone selling goods over the internet could be sued in any court in any country in the world and have that foreign judgement enforced by his home courts. Does anyone really want to be in that situation? I 'm sure FS add-on developers don't!

Agreed, that could cause major issues. I can imagine people going to places like ComicCon getting riled up about that because all of a sudden, they start getting busted for their costumes...

[Guest zzmikezz]

Getting back to the original point, I don't see what is wrong with the UK Court of Appeal's judgement. It ruled that:1 - Plastic toy models of storm trooper helmets featured in the Star Wars films were not sculptures for the purposes of the UK Copyright Design and Patents Act 1986 and their maker was entitled to a defence under section 51 of that Act on the basis that it was not a copyright infringement to copy an article made to a design. (Under UK law the helmets were designs and not copyright. The period of protection for designs is shorter than for copyright and had already expired)2 - Breaches of US copyright by the defendants were not justiciable in England, being essentially local matters to be determined by local courts. (This seems obvious - courts in one country can't be expected to apply the local laws of another country.)3 - The fact that the defendants' products were advertised and sold on the internet did not give it a presence in the US which would make possible the enforcement of a judgment against him in California. (It's long been recognised that the merely selling goods from country A into country B did not amount to the presence of the seller in country B. The court found that selling over the internet was not fundamentally different from selling by advertisements, salesmen, the post, telephone, telex etc, currently used to sell goods abroad.)If the court had ruled otherwise it would have meant that anyone selling goods over the internet could be sued in any court in any country in the world and have that foreign judgement enforced by his home courts. Does anyone really want to be in that situation? I 'm sure FS add-on developers don't!

First, as to "courts in one country can't be expected to apply the local laws of another country", they most certainly can. While not an everyday occurrence it does happen. (No, I don't recall any examples offhand.) In the case of intellectual property disputes, the applicable laws should be those of the country in which the owner of the IP resides.Second, as to "If the court had ruled otherwise it would have meant that anyone selling goods over the internet could be sued in any court in any country in the world and have that foreign judgement enforced by his home courts. Does anyone really want to be in that situation? I 'm sure FS add-on developers don't!", since you feel this way, presumably you'll now stop citing UK law whenever anybody in the UK has a dispute with FS Pilot Shop or other vendors who don't have a business presence in the UK.Third, as to "The court found that selling over the internet was not fundamentally different from selling by advertisements, salesmen, the post, telephone, telex etc, currently used to sell goods abroad", what's fundamentally different here is that what's being sold is intellectual property that is trivially reproduceable in massive quantity by the receiving party.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

First, as to "courts in one country can't be expected to apply the local laws of another country", they most certainly can. While not an everyday occurrence it does happen. (No, I don't recall any examples offhand.) In the case of intellectual property disputes, the applicable laws should be those of the country in which the owner of the IP resides.Second, as to "If the court had ruled otherwise it would have meant that anyone selling goods over the internet could be sued in any court in any country in the world and have that foreign judgement enforced by his home courts. Does anyone really want to be in that situation? I 'm sure FS add-on developers don't!", since you feel this way, presumably you'll now stop citing UK law whenever anybody in the UK has a dispute with FS Pilot Shop or other vendors who don't have a business presence in the UK.Third, as to "The court found that selling over the internet was not fundamentally different from selling by advertisements, salesmen, the post, telephone, telex etc, currently used to sell goods abroad", what's fundamentally different here is that what's being sold is intellectual property that is trivially reproduceable in massive quantity by the receiving party.

You have no idea the implications of what you are saying do you? Use your worst imagination for this one...

[mgh 89]

You have no idea the implications of what you are saying do you? Use your worst imagination for this one...

Agreed!

[louiseSEUK 2]

First, as to "courts in one country can't be expected to apply the local laws of another country", they most certainly can. While not an everyday occurrence it does happen. (No, I don't recall any examples offhand.) In the case of intellectual property disputes, the applicable laws should be those of the country in which the owner of the IP resides.

And why stop at IP disputes, Mike?

[Guest zzmikezz]

And why stop at IP disputes, Mike?

Because I'm not after world government, not out to do away with the concept of national sovereignty.That said, the area of IP is the only area I can think of offhand where an act committed within the borders of country A can even remotely be reasonably considered to be an actionable civil violation of the laws of country B.So the question on the floor really is, Why go as far as IP disputes, leostr? The answer is, Because Mike's proposal would enhance international commerce by encouraging authors to create saleable IP for enjoyment by the rest of us. (That's the purpose of copyright, yes? To encourage the creation and publication of original works, yes? If publication runs counter to authors' interests then creation will be inhibited, yes? And then the rest of us must go without, yes?)

[bobbyjack 61]

Except for this, a more unified world population will reduce wars, it will reduce conflict, because people who have access to the internet, will be much more willing to expand their horizons, and be able to understand the other persons plight. In a way, war is going to be reduced because we will have a much more understanding group of leaders on our hands. How many wars have started because of disagreements and cultural differences, how many wars have been started because of leaders misconstruing the state run media. In reality, the internet, is a method of spreading information at a rate which will prevent war in general. In a way, we are looking at a situation where the world will be more understanding. Remember this however, even if we are not wanting to fight wars, we will be ready, as even if someone doesn't want to fight a war, history shows that you always need to be ready. And our future leaders will have to be knowledgeable of history to be able to avert disaster.

PeterI have a feeling that after the invention of the printing press, some people felt the same way you do. More information would get out to more people, the world would be brought together, and war would end. You assume that all the world has free and open internet. When the monks protested in Myanmar, the first thing that was shut down was the internet. Last summer in Iran, again the internet was shut down. In China, no open internet. There are millions upon millions of people all over the world who don't have electricity, running water, or even a roof over their heads, much less internet. Nothing is going to change that any time soon. Anime and Star Trek ( I love Star Trek) are not reality. Nor should they be. Even in Star Trek, there were bad guys trying to take over the Universe. Every generation thinks it knows how to bring about world peace. Every greneration has failed. East and West will always be East and West. I do not dream of a Global Society. People like a really bad dude, and the leaders of Japan in the 1930s, did.Bob