Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Maybe, for a start, that copyright and patent should have the same term, no matter what that term is, and should have the same legal enforcement framework.
|
I'm good with the same term idea, though I honestly don't think it must be a requirement. We've pointed out the differences between patenting physical objects and copyright of ideas; those differences could influence term periods. But since I don't have a logical breakdown of how, I'll go with equal terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
The main metaphor problem is - what is ownership in the digital world. Do I buy a copy of 1's and 0's? Do I license it? How do you advertise the sale (lease? license?) You can't make metaphors until you can define (and explain) what you mean. (And everybody else understands what you mean.)
On one hand, you have the old physical (analog) concept of "I pay you money and it's mine, to do with what I wish" world. Everybody understands that world and it's implications.
The only metaphor for the digital world that everybody understands is the "movie ticket" metaphor. You buy a ticket and you see it once. You want to see it again? Buy another ticket. This works because the owners of the product being views keep control of the product. Nobody else gets a copy to keep. This is the basis for cable, only on a fixed price basis (X television for Y dollars a month).
|
Combining the movie ticket metaphor with the cable service metaphors is on the right track. Keep in mind that both imply a level of verification required: In the case of movies, the ticket; in the case of cable TV, the house itself (since it almost always stays put) and/or the cable decoder box. We'd need an appropriate version of those metaphors to apply to whatever we use to establish accounts and/or read the files.