Ownership of Lego Block Architecture

Started by rcallicotte, September 03, 2009, 04:21:12 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

Walli

I actually also think, that lockable networks are not the solution. They might be a solution for a studio that wants to share stuff on the one side, but protect their own findings on the other side. But for doing business this often creates even more problems:
-bad reputation of drm
-customers that can´t make their content work, because something of the drm freaks out
-producers that freak out because the drm system can be cracked

And when I see how much time companies inverst into DRM and anticracking systems and how fast the cracks then show up...I think if someone does not want to pay for sftware or content, he simply doesn´t do that.
I have the feeling, that most DRM systems and anticrack systems mostly hit the paying customer, as he not only pays the product, but also the anticrack system. And he suffers from problems that arise with DRM

But I know that I am sometimes to naive when it comes to crime stuff ;-)

Cyber-Angel

The thing that has yet not come out in this debate as far as I can tell is that with enough time and experimentation some one may figure out on their own how too make a node network that looks like some thing created by someone else without having ever looked at the prior work.

The question then remains and you'd need a copyright lawyer for this, did the individual who came up with what they did on their own infringe on prior art of the other party if indeed TG2 or any other programs node network structures are protected under copyright law, which i don't think they are but could be wrong?

Can the plaintiff (In this case the party who claims infringement of their hypothetical TG2 Node Network claim) claim that their rights have been infringed when the defendant came up that same solution on their own recognizance without having seen or having prior knowledge of the prior work.

I think that with a system of the power and inherent flexibility of the Node System in TG2 it is inevitable that people are going to find ways of working that are in many ways similar too that of someone else: this must also be true of other node based systems. I think that trying to claim copyright in a node set up would be a legal minefield as well as been a nightmare to enforce, more over their would have to be a published test case in a court of law to set a precedence for other cases in the future; bearing in mind the impact it would have on the industry as a whole and the impact it would have on all other node based systems.

Regards to you.

Cyber-Angel                             

Walli

Quote from: Cyber-Angel on September 09, 2009, 02:58:20 am
The thing that has yet not come out in this debate as far as I can tell is that with enough time and experimentation some one may figure out on their own how too make a node network that looks like some thing created by someone else without having ever looked at the prior work.


As I wrote, if someone does something on his own, then I don´t have a problem with it.

PG

Quote from: cyphyr on September 08, 2009, 09:17:21 pm
If I create/discover a Mandelbrot set (err for example lol) and publish it with a copyright notice that should not preclude someone else doing the same. As long as they haven't stolen it or copied it all they have done is make their own journey of discovery.


In order to protect your node network for that, you would need to register a design (or whatever the equivelant is in your country) to protect the way your network looks. It wouldn't be worth it unless you discovered/created some massively complex and amazing function that made TG2 turn the user into a demi-god.
Other than that, I doubt a court would hold a copyright to be enough, as you're not really creating something entirely new, you're just designing a new way to do something which probably has multiple routes.
Figured out how to do clicky signatures

rcallicotte

One thing about a locked node (or a do-it-yourself Black Box) would be that if someone does crack it, that person will be showing their intentions - to take something they weren't meant to take.   That is how it would be addressed in American court, anyway - the "why".  This is the reasoning behind why I think Black Box nodes would be a step in the right direction for those copyrighting concepts.

Nevertheless, then when someone else decides to create their own Black Box to do something better than someone else's Black Box, woohoo!  Then, who owns the "copyright"?  LOL  Can't help but complicate things, since writing sort of has these sorts of goofy analogies.  Like, how much of an idea can someone steal, before it's considered theft by the legal system?  In my mind, taking someone else's idea and using it to make money is a crime.  But, one Hollywood producer told me bluntly, "You can't copyright ideas."  Great.  So all those conversations I was having online with all of those insiders meant I just gave up my hard earned thoughts.  Pooo-eeee.   ;D

Anyway, I'll always pay for what I use, if it has been purchased with such an agreement.
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?


rcallicotte

@Mandrake - And nothing in the news about § 106. Prohibition on patent of human genetic material, though it appears to be part of a bill going to the House of Representatives.  Crazy doesn't even touch it, does it?

So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?