Reasonably priced C11 standard?

[Noob]

It's hard for me to believe that a perfect stranger whose only
connection to you is that he downloaded something that you made
available over the internet, could qualify as being in your "close
circle". If such a person did qualify, it would render copyright
meaningless.

I didn't mean to imply that one is free to download anything from
"the Internets" and then claim it was given to him by someone in
his "close circle".

What I did mean to imply is: one might ask one's "close circle"
(family, friends, co-workers) for a copy of a work protected by
copyright, instead of purchasing it.

That IS legal in some jurisdictions.

Some of us can use our own brains to understand the value of having
copyrights (and reasonable enforcement of same).

I don't know what planet you come from, but there is no such thing
as "reasonable enforcement of copy right", only an over-reaching
legal arsenal that makes "napalm to kill a fly" look tame.

Regards.

 

[James Kuyper]

I don't know what planet you come from, ...

Apparently not the same one you're living on.

... but there is no such thing
as "reasonable enforcement of copy right", only an over-reaching
legal arsenal that makes "napalm to kill a fly" look tame.

I've heard lots of complaints about excessive enforcement of copyright,
but with a few exceptions most of the loudest complaints come mainly
from people who have no sympathy with the concept of copyright at all.
They're entitled to their opinion, even if I don't share it, but the
only way to satisfy their complaints would be to remove copyright
enforcement entirely.

I've seen a few notorious cases where someone who actually believes in
copyright has been unfairly targeted with a copyright enforcement
action, but only a few. Unfair trademark enforcement seems a more common
issue.

 

[Noob]

Apparently not the same one you're living on.

Correct. I live on Utopia, you live on Dystopia

I've heard lots of complaints about excessive enforcement of copyright,
but with a few exceptions most of the loudest complaints come mainly
from people who have no sympathy with the concept of copyright at all.

The main problems with "copy-right" are 1) its excessive length
and 2) the legal arsenal "rights holders" have obtained in the
past 20 years.

They're entitled to their opinion, even if I don't share it, but the
only way to satisfy their complaints would be to remove copyright
enforcement entirely.

Not necessarily. The concept has some value.

I've seen a few notorious cases where someone who actually believes in
copyright has been unfairly targeted with a copyright enforcement
action, but only a few.

The current copy-right model is killing the cultural history of the
"developed" world. How many computer games from the 70s, 80s, 90s are
now forever lost because it is "forbidden" to copy ROMs? How many
records from the 50s, 60s, 70s are forever lost (or impossible to find)
because people are afraid to share them, even though the music labels
are not interested in selling them, while distribution costs are
plummeting towards 0? Same thing for old books. (Here, a residential
fiber optics link costs 30 EUR/month -- 100 Mbit/s down + 50 Mbit/s up;
a peer to peer network of these will share anything in a few seconds.)

IMHO, the current model cannot be allowed to perpetuate.

Unfair trademark enforcement seems a more common issue.

Errr... what?

 

[Fritz Wuehler]

It's hard for me to believe that a perfect stranger whose only
connection to you is that he downloaded something that you made
available over the internet, could qualify as being in your "close
circle". If such a person did qualify, it would render copyright
meaningless.

Meet him for a cup of coffee and hand him a CD?

Some of us can use our own brains to understand the value of having
copyrights (and reasonable enforcement of same).

Agreed. Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.

 

[Rui Maciel]

I've heard lots of complaints about excessive enforcement of copyright,
but with a few exceptions most of the loudest complaints come mainly
from people who have no sympathy with the concept of copyright at all.
They're entitled to their opinion, even if I don't share it, but the
only way to satisfy their complaints would be to remove copyright
enforcement entirely.

Can you provide any evidence on any case where a proponent of the right to
unauthorized access to copyrighted work strictly for personal use proposes
in any way that copyright enforcement should be entirely removed?



Rui Maciel

 

[Walter Banks]

Notice that being supportive of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
works exclusively for personal use does not mean that one fails to
"understand the value of having copyrights".

There are many copyrights for works with a personal use only audience.

This issue more than any other impacts the how innovation risk is
evaluated in going forward with new idea's. Thirty years ago before
this was anywhere the kind of issue it is now we were willing to
develop an idea that had an 80% chance of not creating enough
revenue to break even. The acceptable risk is now less than 20%.
The difference is 30 years ago those that did succeed produced
the revenue needed to sustain innovation funding.

IP protection helps everyone and protects the very employment
of most on this news group.

Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited

 

[Walter Banks]

The main problems with "copy-right" are 1) its excessive length
and 2) the legal arsenal "rights holders" have obtained in the
past 20 years.

1) (excessive length) The length of copyright is an artifact of software
industry losing the effectiveness of patent protection. The length of
patent protection is about right for software protection to make most
development economically viable. Copyright turned out to be the only
protection with enough teeth to protect software.

2 (legal arsenal) The first time you wake up one morning to discover
that you have paid the development costs for a handful of competing
companies, starts with an upset stomach over breakfast a three
martini lunch and tears in your beer that night. Right after the aspirin
in the morning for the hangover the calls to legal start with,
"Do something now!!!" When you are the victim or the preconceived
victim it gets personal just thinking about all the mid-night to morning
sessions that you will never be paid for.

Independent of industry IP violation is a personal emotional response
in creative people. All I have talked to expressed the view that it is
like arriving home to find a burglar has has been there in your absence.

Personally I would liked to have seen a respected software protection
scheme closer to a patent and similar in implementation to a registered
copyright. Something like 10-15 years duration, specific claims but
costing closer to trademark costs. There is little or no chance that this
could happen now.

Regards


Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited

 

[Rui Maciel]

There are many copyrights for works with a personal use only audience.

This issue more than any other impacts the how innovation risk is
evaluated in going forward with new idea's. Thirty years ago before
this was anywhere the kind of issue it is now we were willing to
develop an idea that had an 80% chance of not creating enough
revenue to break even. The acceptable risk is now less than 20%.
The difference is 30 years ago those that did succeed produced
the revenue needed to sustain innovation funding.

IP protection helps everyone and protects the very employment
of most on this news group.

This "we need totalitarian control over copyrighted works to make a profit"
argument has already been thoroughly refuted. It has already been
demonstrated that totalitarian control of a copyrighted work does not have a
meaningful effect on sales, and it has also been demonstrated that the
unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works has a positive influence on
sales.

The only influence that totalitarian control over copyrighted work has on
the commercialization of copyrighted works is that it provides distributors,
and not authors, with a tool to regain complete control over distribution
channels, and therefore monopolize the access to education, culture and
entertainment.


Rui Maciel

 

[Walter Banks]

Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.

The current ISO or ANSI standards are sold for very much less than the
actual costs. They are low volume documents whose development costs are
subsidized by governments, trade organizations, private companies and
individuals.

w..

 

[Rui Maciel]

1) (excessive length) The length of copyright is an artifact of software
industry losing the effectiveness of patent protection.

Are you referring to which jurisdiction? If I'm not mistaken, the revision
to the US code which brought over copyright terms that go over 100 years
dates back to 1978, and I don't believe you can claim a link between that
revision and any software industry.

2 (legal arsenal) The first time you wake up one morning to discover
that you have paid the development costs for a handful of competing
companies, starts with an upset stomach over breakfast a three
martini lunch and tears in your beer that night. Right after the aspirin
in the morning for the hangover the calls to legal start with,
"Do something now!!!" When you are the victim or the preconceived
victim it gets personal just thinking about all the mid-night to morning
sessions that you will never be paid for.

How exactly do you go from having the right to access a copyrighted work for
personal use without any authorization to pay "the development costs for a
handful of competing companies"?

Independent of industry IP violation is a personal emotional response
in creative people. All I have talked to expressed the view that it is
like arriving home to find a burglar has has been there in your absence.

Where exactly do you see a link between unauthorized distribution of
copyrighted works for personal use and "arriving home to find a burglar"?


Rui Maciel

 

[Walter Banks]

This "we need totalitarian control over copyrighted works to make a profit"
argument has already been thoroughly refuted. It has already been
demonstrated that totalitarian control of a copyrighted work does not have a
meaningful effect on sales, and it has also been demonstrated that the
unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works has a positive influence on
sales.

The only influence that totalitarian control over copyrighted work has on
the commercialization of copyrighted works is that it provides distributors,
and not authors, with a tool to regain complete control over distribution
channels, and therefore monopolize the access to education, culture and
entertainment.

If authors want to put material into the public domain let them do so (many do).

This is not about rights of education, culture and entertainment.

What I develop privately should be distributed in a way I authorize
under my terms. Any other way violates my IP rights.

Regards,


Walter Banks

 

[Rui Maciel]

If authors want to put material into the public domain let them do so
(many do).

This is not about rights of education, culture and entertainment.

Why do you believe that nonsense? Do you believe that there are different
copyright laws that apply to you and to everyone else in your jurisdiction?

What I develop privately should be distributed in a way I authorize
under my terms. Any other way violates my IP rights.

Your copyright is still yours, and you lose absolutely nothing if someone
happens to access any copyrighted work exclusively for personal use. They
still have an unauthorized copy, which they cannot sell, and you haven't
lost a single cent on that. In fact, unauthorized users will end up
contributing to any demand for that particular copyrighted work.

So, what exactly do you have to lose?


Rui Maciel

 

[James Kuyper]

James Kuyper wrote: ....

Errr... what?

Like when Xerox corporation bears down on anyone who tries to use xerox
as a generic term for a photocopier, regardless of brand, or when Apple
cracks down on anyone trying to sell something with a name that starts
with 'i' followed by an upper case letter.

 

[Walter Banks]

Why do you believe that nonsense? Do you believe that there are different
copyright laws that apply to you and to everyone else in your jurisdiction?


Your copyright is still yours, and you lose absolutely nothing if someone
happens to access any copyrighted work exclusively for personal use. They
still have an unauthorized copy, which they cannot sell, and you haven't
lost a single cent on that. In fact, unauthorized users will end up
contributing to any demand for that particular copyrighted work.

So, what exactly do you have to lose?

Distribution control of my property. Financial and promotional
choices are mine not theirs. Maybe I want to distribute material to
my customers for free as a reward for customer loyalty.

w..

 

[Noob]

Distribution control of my property. Financial and promotional
choices are mine not theirs. Maybe I want to distribute material
to my customers for free as a reward for customer loyalty.

And this irrational power trip (multiplied ten thousand fold
for media corporations) is EXACTLY why many old records,
movies, and books are now forever lost, because the last copy
was destroyed in a fire, flood, earthquake (pick your poison).

Once an "original work" reaches a certain status in the
collective mind of society, it no longer belongs to its
creator, it belongs to everyone who has invested "mind
share" in it.

e.g. songs from the 60s, such as those from the beatles or
the rolling stones should now be in the public domain, for
everyone to listen to, share, sample, whatever.

 

[Walter Banks]

And this irrational power trip (multiplied ten thousand fold
for media corporations) is EXACTLY why many old records,
movies, and books are now forever lost, because the last copy
was destroyed in a fire, flood, earthquake (pick your poison).

Once an "original work" reaches a certain status in the
collective mind of society, it no longer belongs to its
creator, it belongs to everyone who has invested "mind
share" in it.

This is also the rational of time limited protection to eventually
allow material to be widely available at some point. Until you
reach that point then it should be distributed according to
the wishes of the IP owner.

If you look at what I have written over the years I am in favor
of this time protection for software to be similar to patent
protections. Other material may have different appropriate
time periods.

Registered copyrights have preserved the last copy of huge
amount of material, especially old movies. The Library of
Congress copyright copy has been the last copy of many
old works.

Far from an "irrational power trip" ,an insulting comment, there
is copyright material on my companies website (books and
papers) that is free for anyone to download or provide links to,
we do not wish to have this material to be available from other
websites.

Walter Banks

 

[Rui Maciel]

Distribution control of my property. Financial and promotional
choices are mine not theirs. Maybe I want to distribute material to
my customers for free as a reward for customer loyalty.

No one loses a red cent if someone copies any copyrighted work. In fact, it
has already been widely demonstrated that unauthorized distribution is
linked to an increase in demand and provides free publicity. So, it isn't
possible to make any rational case based on financial worries.

And for your information, in some jurisdictions if a copyright owner refuses
to distribute their work then any citizen can sue the copyright owner to
force him to supply a given market, even if that goes agains the copyright
owner's wishes.


Rui Maciel

 

[Anonymous]

The current ISO or ANSI standards are sold for very much less than the
actual costs. They are low volume documents whose development costs are
subsidized by governments, trade organizations, private companies and
individuals.

You saw the price quoted in this thread? If they were subsidized you
certainly can't tell from the price shown. BTW as you well know, those
companies and organizations who participate in standards committees do so
for their own benefit. I don't believe they would lose out by selling the
documents for 10 or 15 bucks (everybody on the list would probably buy 2
copies) and by making them downloadable for free.

Barring that, I'll bootleg a copy off the net asap ;-)

Fritz

 

[James Kuyper]

I didn't know that they were subsidized, I thought that the prices they
charged were their primary source of funding.

You saw the price quoted in this thread? If they were subsidized you
certainly can't tell from the price shown.

Would you expect to be able to tell? Do you have any idea how large
their expenses are? Do you have any idea how small the number of copies
they sell of the average standard? Neither do I, and none of the
committee members who participated in the last discussion I saw on this
topic were able to answer either of those questions, either. I think
it's entirely possible that the total expenses divided by the number of
copies sold might indeed come close to, or even exceed, $200/copy. I
don't have anywhere near enough relevant information to distinguish
unsubsidized prices from subsidized ones. Do you have enough
information? If so, could you provide it to us?

 

[John Gordon]

No one loses a red cent if someone copies any copyrighted work.

You seem to be assuming that the infringer is completely unwilling to
purchase a legitimate copy of the work. Surely that is not true in
all such cases.

Or are you not counting missed sales as "loss"?