I know

[Ironwolf]

What you need to distinguish is the vast differences in Software versus Books and other creative material.

It would be fairly easy to show that advances in graphics and other programming changes (Operating Systems) make software age far faster than books or other media does.

I would suggest the following:
After a period of 2 years with no sales of the software it reverts back to the original creator (company or individual) and if that is not possible it Becomes public domain.
This does not affect the rights of the Owner to any profits. The game/software may be published but on a not-for-profit status. In other words you may accept donations but not require them to play/use the software.

In our case the game would revert to Cryptic and if they did nothing with it for 12 months I would allow the software to be petitioned for release to public domain within 6 calendar months.

[MWRuger]

In the United States constitution, the congress is expressly forbidden to pass Ex Post Facto laws. The reason that copyright extension works is because the items in question never enter public domain. While I strongly doubt that the changes that are being suggested could ever become law, they would very likely not help City of Heroes.

For example, those cartoon DVD's that you see at drug stores are public domain because they copyright was allowed to lapse. No extension can cover them. In a particular case Disney failed to renew copyright on some newspaper strips and they fell into public domain. Believe me, if Disney could copyright them they would.

Keep in mind, that all a company would have to do to tie down the IP is make some use of it once a year. What good would the code be without the IP? Imagine NCSoft producing a limited edition set of postcards that feature key elements of the IP on a yearly basis just to keep it under control.

This also ignores the problem of large IP holders with plenty of money being able to retain control and small IP holders losing control because of lack of resources.

I can't imagine many, if any, of the groups pushing for copyright and IP reform backing this strategy.

[JaguarX]

Keep in mind, that all a company would have to do to tie down the IP is make some use of it once a year. What good would the code be without the IP? Imagine NCSoft producing a limited edition set of postcards that feature key elements of the IP on a yearly basis just to keep it under control.

This also ignores the problem of large IP holders with plenty of money being able to retain control and small IP holders losing control because of lack of resources.

I can't imagine many, if any, of the groups pushing for copyright and IP reform backing this strategy.

Yup.

It probably would cause greater harm to small IP holders than major corporations like Disney. It would simply be another day another dollar. re-release some token show of use every year or so, and still retain control. Small one, mess around and lose their IP if they take a break for a year and or do not have fund to market ad or create a product using the IP at that time.

[thunderforce]

In the United States constitution, the congress is expressly forbidden to pass Ex Post Facto laws. The reason that copyright extension works is because the items in question never enter public domain.

Err, except we are dealing with a Korean company, and furthermore the American prohibition on ex post facto laws has been ruled to refer purely to criminal matters, whereas (in spite of the efforts of Big Copyright) simple copyright infringement is a civil matter - leaving aside the question of whether a retroactive copyright extension is any more retroactive than a reduction.

I don't expect any simple reform (even if we could have such a thing) to help, but even if it were a question of American law, I don't see any reason it would be contrary to your Constitution.

[Arcana]

What you need to distinguish is the vast differences in Software versus Books and other creative material.

It would be fairly easy to show that advances in graphics and other programming changes (Operating Systems) make software age far faster than books or other media does.

I would suggest the following:
After a period of 2 years with no sales of the software it reverts back to the original creator (company or individual) and if that is not possible it Becomes public domain.
This does not affect the rights of the Owner to any profits. The game/software may be published but on a not-for-profit status. In other words you may accept donations but not require them to play/use the software.

In our case the game would revert to Cryptic and if they did nothing with it for 12 months I would allow the software to be petitioned for release to public domain within 6 calendar months.

I don't see how that would be workable for  number of reasons.  First, not all software is individually and directly sold.  For example, the Cryptic engine itself isn't sold.  It would be tricky to determine when software was genuinely no longer in active publication, particularly for component software.

And imagine this hypothetical.  I write software designed to manage very large businesses, but I only manage to convince one business to buy it.  Two years later if I haven't found another customer does that mean everyone can now use it for free?

And here's a wild hypothetical.  Suppose all the Oracle users groups worldwide staged a two year boycott of their software.  In 730 days, they hit the jackpot and can use Oracle for free in perpetuity? 

If you only require the software to be "for sale" whether it actually generates sales or not, that creates a different loophole.  NCSoft could put CoH clients and servers up for sale for a billion dollars.  They would then be for sale, but with no possibility of anyone actually buying them.  Alternatively, NCSoft Korea could explicitly license CoH to NCI with strict orders not to load the servers anywhere.  Technically speaking, the software is being actively licensed to a third party and thus "being sold" in the sense the law would likely have to recognize.  How would the law distinguish between selling to another company and selling to individuals?

[Joshex]

I don't see how that would be workable for  number of reasons.  First, not all software is individually and directly sold.  For example, the Cryptic engine itself isn't sold.  It would be tricky to determine when software was genuinely no longer in active publication, particularly for component software.

And imagine this hypothetical.  I write software designed to manage very large businesses, but I only manage to convince one business to buy it.  Two years later if I haven't found another customer does that mean everyone can now use it for free?

And here's a wild hypothetical.  Suppose all the Oracle users groups worldwide staged a two year boycott of their software.  In 730 days, they hit the jackpot and can use Oracle for free in perpetuity? 

If you only require the software to be "for sale" whether it actually generates sales or not, that creates a different loophole.  NCSoft could put CoH clients and servers up for sale for a billion dollars.  They would then be for sale, but with no possibility of anyone actually buying them.  Alternatively, NCSoft Korea could explicitly license CoH to NCI with strict orders not to load the servers anywhere.  Technically speaking, the software is being actively licensed to a third party and thus "being sold" in the sense the law would likely have to recognize.  How would the law distinguish between selling to another company and selling to individuals?

I'm still working on the text, but this is the reason I stated Official availability as I did, so long as you intended to sell it (regardless if it sold) then it's still legit. yeah it does need some tweaking I tweaked it a little a few weeks ago but didn't do enough to show juggling a full time job and college now,but I still work at it when I find time. I'm thinking limiting Official availaility to some form of market cap, but thats a touchy subject.. sorta like "it must be available for sale for no more than 100% over the cost of production minus labor." or something like that to avoid gouging as was stated a long time ago as an issue. but that text cleary limits the capitalistic range any software can be sold for per unit, aka a market cap, not a very capitalistic thing, not to mention it will close even more loopholes for poor folk like us to strike it rich. takes a lot of consideration..

[thunderforce]

I'm thinking limiting Official availaility to some form of market cap, but thats a touchy subject.. sorta like "it must be available for sale for no more than 100% over the cost of production minus labor." or something like that to avoid gouging as was stated a long time ago as an issue.

This really doesn't work for a product of this nature where most of the cost of production is a capital cost amortised across every copy sold.

I really can't express how utterly futile this line of approach is, but the right thing to do there is leave it up to the courts to decide if a product is genuinely available.

[MWRuger]

This really doesn't work for a product of this nature where most of the cost of production is a capital cost amortised across every copy sold.

I really can't express how utterly futile this line of approach is, but the right thing to do there is leave it up to the courts to decide if a product is genuinely available.

It will never get to a court. I can't imagine any of the groups working for copyright reform supporting this strategy. It doesn't address the problems that currently exist and raises a whole crop of new ones.

Back to the drawing board I think.

[thunderforce]

It will never get to a court.

Er, I think you misread what I wrote. I'm not suggesting that Joshex's idea will end up in court; I'm suggesting that would be part of the mechanism by which the abandonment status of works was decided, not trying to write a set of rules to cover every eventuality.

I can't imagine any of the groups working for copyright reform supporting this strategy.

I'm reasonably sure many of them do support abandoned works entering the public domain.

[MWRuger]

Yes we absolutely support abandoned works  becoming public domain.

The rub is that the process that Joshex describes that he would like to pursue is not one is particularly useful for reforming copyright. It gives too much control to large copyright holders and very little protection for small IP holders. It makes it far to easy for a large corporation to virtually extend copyright indefinitely, far beyond the already absurd period that exists.

What we advocate is a more sensible period of copyright protection and an end to ongoing extensions, the current method used to cover older works under corporate ownership. We also support the reform of certain aspects of the DMCA because it directly contradicts The Fair Use decision handed down by the Supreme Court. It also makes it very difficult to actually use the products you buy for any purpose that rights holder deems inappropriate, whether it is or not and even makes study and discussion of encryption used illegal.

For example, even though Fair Use supports it, DMCA makes it illegal for you to take a copy you buy of a movie on DVD and re-code it to work on a mobile device.  Even discussion of how this might be done are illegal.

[thunderforce]

Yes we absolutely support abandoned works  becoming public domain.

I can't help but notice that "we" has extended to telling me, as a member of such groups, what I think. (I do also support that, but I don't live in a country blighted by the DMCA, for example).

The rub is that the process that Joshex describes that he would like to pursue is not one is particularly useful for reforming copyright.

Er, yes, I'm not sure who you're arguing with who thinks Joshex has a practical idea. What I'm saying is that I would expect edge cases for abandonment, in a sensible world, to be decided in court.

[MWRuger]

I just meant we as in the people who advocate for copyright reform. I meant it mainly as a general statement because there are always differences between various groups that advocate for change depending on focus and stated goals.

I work for a non-profit that advocates for environmental issues and even though we all support restoring the environment, our goals can be somewhat different. I meant WE in that sense.

You are lucky that you don't have the DMCA to blight wherever. Wish I could say the same. The US is a good place to focus because they are pretty aggressive with enforcement and use diplomatic pressure to force other countries to enforce their positions.