3 ms·

> You're ignoring the part where I said twice that taking money from all the rich with a tax would be okay That isn't the point the person you were responding

by braveo 9y ago

> You're ignoring the part where I said twice that taking money from all the rich with a tax would be okay That isn't the point the person you were responding to was making. And you know it, but you're trying to weasel your way out of ridiculousness here. > Taking old code arbitrarily from one company can degrade ownership-of-old-code, but that's not really a bad thing, because that type of ownership is unimportant to society Tell that to the banking industry. And SC tournaments are still televised in South Korea (fyi). The problem you're running into is that what you're arguing is completely arbitrary. COMPLETELY arbitrary. "old code" doesn't mean shit when we have companies that are still running code that's well over 20 years old. It's arbitrary on your part because you have an agenda and you're willing to ignore Blizzards rights to code they paid to have produced.

Dylan16807 9y ago
> And you know it What do I know? I seriously need you to explain what you imagine I'm saying. > Tell that to the banking industry. A bank using 30 year old code does not mean that the IP rights to that code are worth a single penny. They use it because they need their systems to be bug-compatible with what they have been doing for decades, and they would not lose competitive advantage if they no longer had copyright over that code. > And SC tournaments are still televised in South Korea (fyi). The source code hypothetically being public domain wouldn't affect the art assets, and wouldn't affect the monetization of those tournaments in any way. > It's arbitrary on your part because you have an agenda Are you completely opposed to the idea that different realms of copyright might have different ideal lengths of time? There's basically a 0% chance that the current copyright lengths are ideal now and forever.
- braveo 9y ago
  > They use it because they need their systems to be bug-compatible with what they have been doing for decades, and they would not lose competitive advantage if they no longer had copyright over that code. You mean in the same way Google is going after Uber for stealing their intellectual property? You're unreasonable, I'm done with this conversation.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    > You mean in the same way Google is going after Uber for stealing their intellectual property? Bleeding edge technology does not even resemble decades-old COBOL bugs. By the time we hit a similar number of years, those patents will be expired and Uber will be allowed to use the designs. You've yet again strawmanned me into being against all IP, and not just decades-old technical IP.
    - braveo 9y ago
      > By the time we hit a similar number of years, those patents will be expired and Uber will be allowed to use the designs. Bullshit. The IP is still legally owned by someone else, and they're suing based up on that IP, not just because. The age of the code or technology doesn't enter into it.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        Patents expire.
        braveo 9y ago
        right, that's MY point. You call it old code, I call it code that's currently covered by IP law, the rest doesn't matter. Atleast we agree now, the age of the code is irrelevant.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        The age is why patents expire. I think the copyright on code should be as short as patents. Nice and simple. Law is hard to do right. Some parts do good and some parts don't. The first few years of code copyright do good. As far as I know the rest of those years don't.
        braveo 9y ago
        The age isn't relevant, what's relevant is whether the patent/copyright currently exists and who holds said patent/copyright. And before you continue with this silly argument about age, copyright and patents can be invalidated 2 days after the claim is made. The law doesn't ask how old they are, the law asks if the copyright/patent is still in effect. You want it to be about the age because you're pushing an agenda, but the law doesn't care about age. Google isn't going after Uber on the basis of the tech being new, they're going after Uber on the basis of their existing intellectual property.

by braveo 9y ago

Dylan16807 9y ago

> And you know it What do I know? I seriously need you to explain what you imagine I'm saying. > Tell that to the banking industry. A bank using 30 year old code does not mean that the IP rights to that code are worth a single penny. They use it because they need their systems to be bug-compatible with what they have been doing for decades, and they would not lose competitive advantage if they no longer had copyright over that code. > And SC tournaments are still televised in South Korea (fyi). The source code hypothetically being public domain wouldn't affect the art assets, and wouldn't affect the monetization of those tournaments in any way. > It's arbitrary on your part because you have an agenda Are you completely opposed to the idea that different realms of copyright might have different ideal lengths of time? There's basically a 0% chance that the current copyright lengths are ideal now and forever.

braveo 9y ago
> They use it because they need their systems to be bug-compatible with what they have been doing for decades, and they would not lose competitive advantage if they no longer had copyright over that code. You mean in the same way Google is going after Uber for stealing their intellectual property? You're unreasonable, I'm done with this conversation.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  > You mean in the same way Google is going after Uber for stealing their intellectual property? Bleeding edge technology does not even resemble decades-old COBOL bugs. By the time we hit a similar number of years, those patents will be expired and Uber will be allowed to use the designs. You've yet again strawmanned me into being against all IP, and not just decades-old technical IP.
  - braveo 9y ago
    > By the time we hit a similar number of years, those patents will be expired and Uber will be allowed to use the designs. Bullshit. The IP is still legally owned by someone else, and they're suing based up on that IP, not just because. The age of the code or technology doesn't enter into it.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      Patents expire.
      - braveo 9y ago
        right, that's MY point. You call it old code, I call it code that's currently covered by IP law, the rest doesn't matter. Atleast we agree now, the age of the code is irrelevant.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        The age is why patents expire. I think the copyright on code should be as short as patents. Nice and simple. Law is hard to do right. Some parts do good and some parts don't. The first few years of code copyright do good. As far as I know the rest of those years don't.
        braveo 9y ago
        The age isn't relevant, what's relevant is whether the patent/copyright currently exists and who holds said patent/copyright. And before you continue with this silly argument about age, copyright and patents can be invalidated 2 days after the claim is made. The law doesn't ask how old they are, the law asks if the copyright/patent is still in effect. You want it to be about the age because you're pushing an agenda, but the law doesn't care about age. Google isn't going after Uber on the basis of the tech being new, they're going after Uber on the basis of their existing intellectual property.