Your straw man is weak.
I know, it really isn’t my best work : <
edit: though in response to your question, how come you can’t enforce your own contracts through force? Why do you need the State to do it for you?
Actually, I changed my mind. Screw democratic access to our shared cultural history. I side with any law that will prevent another Marvel from coming into existence.
Yeah, it would be pretty dumb if a group of aspiring animators plucked stories like the little mermaid or snow white out of the public domain and made their own version of it thinking it could go anywhere or bring anyone happiness.
Ok, so since raz0r and his sycophants have proven not to be worth a serious response I"ll stop derailing the thread and just disregard them.
Is there anyone in here that are against patents entirely? I don’t think I’ve seen a post in here yet that were completely against patents.
Like I said in my first post I’m not against the idea itself, just against perpetual patents. Though I’d be less against that if people weren’t able to be so fucking broad with patents and there’s also some things I don’t think should be able to be patented. Also, patents should protect the actual inventor unless they voluntarily sell their invention to others.(Which is not the case in many cases, such as the whole plumpynut fiasco). Also you shouldn’t be able to bar someone from making an innovation on something and then selling that innovation, which is completely different from selling something that is exactly like someone else’s thing lock stock and barrel(to make a literature example, you should most definitely be able to make a comic about a flying superhero in a cape that’s weak to a an element and sell it without some company(say DC) saying you ripped them off and barring you from selling that).
What do you think of that, Good/Kromo?
I agree with pretty much everything in the BEWD’s post, I’m not sure about the innovation thing simply because it’d be too easy to make a near insignificant improvement (But more people like this colour! It has to be an improvement!) and re-sell an idea. I think you’d still need some time period before the improvement comes out and the improvement would have to be great enough that it an essentially new product (albeit one based on the same underlying innovation that was patented in the first place). Otherwise you’d just see legal trolling by big companies who can afford to bring cases against every improvement, or to just prolong similar cases against them indefinitely.
Also, while I don’t agree with raz0r’s posts in general, I *do *think that there are some important areas where copyright laws should differ for various types of properties. Otherwise you’ll just get lawyers arguing “The Samsung Galaxy was just a *satire *of the iPhone! Fair use!”
Also, to quote from my post at the bottom of page 2:
No I’m right there with you on that. Obviously if you take the caped hero I mention, and give him a jheri curl, a square jaw, and a big F on his chest as well as blue and red tights you’re not fooling anybody. I think you’re confused on what innovation means. In my first post I also mentioned how having a duration was not a problem to me, an infinite duration though is something else.
Also Osh I’m just iffy on the whole medicine/engineering thing. I definitely think medical scientists and engineers should be able to make money off their inventions and have some protections. I just don’t think they should be able to bar people access to their research or stop other people from continuing further experiments using the scientist/engineers products. Though some people would take this as allowing people to “benefit off the work of others” and thus a big no no, science has ALWAYS had people benefiting off the work of others. All scientific theories have built off the previous generation and each scientist owes his predecessors. Sharing your work(which is not the same as people taking it from you and calling it their work) has been one of the core ethics of science. This is sortof a rant of mine, but my point there is that when considering patents/copyrights, there’s more to consider than just dollars.
Could you elaborate? Other than my conflating innovation and improvement (which I’ll admit was a mistake, but helped to keep my explanation simple) I don’t see where I went wrong.
^no that’s pretty much what I meant.
He patented it. Gonna have to wait until he’s been dead for 20 years to do so; longer if his company gets the patent.
저는 론 버건디 입니까?
someone’s scared of DC vs Toei…
Chris G finds some Chiaotzu tech that embarrasses the fuck out of Supaman. tier lists changed forever.
Recoome posin
DC did put a stop to the first few non-DC Superman-type characters back in the 1940s. Wonder Man came along and DC was able to prove in court that the character was expressly intended to imitate Superman, despite having a different, more mystical story. Captain Marvel came along and clung to publication for a while, but DC eventually put a stop to that, too.
After a while, though, DC kind of shot itself in the foot by trying to replicate the success of Superman so many times and with so many variations. The company demonstrated on its own that the superhero idea was more than just one specific character or property.
And that, folks, is how one idea grows into an entire genre.
My position is this: there is a certain aspect of an idea that can’t be owned. It is the aspect that is self-replicating, that leaps from brain to brain as soon as it gets expressed. You might not intend for it to happen and might not even know it’s happening. If you have an idea in your head that did not originate there and you express that idea, you’re not necessarily ripping off whomever came up with it. It’s not your fault that the idea is in your head. It is the nature of an idea to behave like a virus and to be expressed by many people.
Obviously, something about the superhero springs from a part of the human psyche that is communal, that has collectively populated entire universes of fiction with similar characters and situations. There have been superhero-esque characters in our stories since the beginnings of literature. Some day, when superheroes fall out of fashion, there will be a new archetype that draws upon that tradition. It is ludicrous to think that anybody can claim ownership over that. But, put your original superhero character in a blue leotard and a red cape with a pentagonal shield on his chest, and you suddenly have a combination of ideas that is probably too specific to happen very often by coincidence alone.
The question then becomes: how complex the combination, or how specific, or how often? And how quickly do those things change?
Superman uses his super-speed + vision powers to gather the Dragon Balls in the blink of an eye. He uses his wish to make people stop denying that he would win any of these damn fights. The rest of the series is about Superman and Capsule Corp. joining together to advance the scientific achievements of both worlds. Also, he teaches Goku to read.
Superboy Prime reads a troll post and punches a wall, DC gets rebooted again. Everything returns to a slightly different status quo. Oh and Superman gets nerfed again like he does in every reboot but Bat family remains untouched. :rock:
Oh and it’s funny that Goku was brought up, I think Dragonball Kai had to change up it’s whole soundtrack because it was found out that the dude basically ripped off a lot of work. I think the Tenkaichi series also got effected in some way. Need to look up to specifics.
As the DC and Dragonball universes (multiverses) are joined, Superboy’s reboot punch also affects the course of events in Goku’s life. The one defining butterfly-effect incident that Goku’s whole story depends upon–the accident in which he hits his head–is easily dislodged from the timeline. The child Kakaroto devastates the Earth as he was always intended to do, and ironically never does battle with any of the villains who would drive him to greatness. He remains a lowly footsoldier, unskilled and weak. When he encounters Superman, Superman deals with him easily even despite the post-reboot nerf.
With Goku out of the way, it then becomes the story of Freeza’s empire versus the DC heroes. By the time any of the really important DB villains show up (which takes a while due to all the talking, staring, and driving lessons), Superman has been powered up all over again, which always happens. DC’s cosmic-level heroes have a fairly easy time dealing with the relatively puny planet-destroying Freeza and his family. Since Goku never battled the Red Ribbon Army, there is no Cell and there are no androids. The physically weak Babidi is annihilated in the devastation of Earth before he can ever release Buu. Though Earth itself is a wasteland, DC’s presence in the Dragon Ball universe ushers in an age of peace and tranquility, while Goku himself is either a skidmark on a rock somewhere or the newest citizen of the Phantom Zone.
How dare you go on-topic?
Right and I think this is where a lot of the clashes occur. Just how narrowly do we define a concept such that others can make new creations in a similar vein that are not a complete rip off of something else? It’s a lot more complicated and subjective than just ranting “STOP RIPPING OFF OTHER PEOPLE’S WORK!!!”
Referencing the Plumpy’nut thing again, the company uses their patent to bar people from making products similar to Plumpy’nut. The patent specifically grants them rights over nut based, nutritional foods such as pastes(wiki). That’s completely ridiculous. Luckily people pushed back against Nutriset enough that they started allowing NGOs and local based companies to make Plumpy’Nut without paying their obnoxious licensing fees, though some are still seeking to invalidate their patent.
edit: Edited post upon re-reading the case as there were two inventors, one of them patented Plumpynut so changed my post to reflect that. Still stand by everything I said about the patent
It would also seem to indicate that the more an idea is allowed to proliferate (e.g. the chord progression of “Canon in D” by Pachelbel), the less it can be said to be owned and the more it becomes an element of the culture in which we all participate. And/or the more specifically it must be used in combination with other ideas if it is to be upheld as an original work.
^Interesting first part to your post.
As for your second, I’m of the mind that the more specifically specified the patent is the better. You want to patent a blue and red spandex wearing, cape flowing, jheri curl and blue tinted hair, square jawed, musclebound hero with an pentagonal emblem with an S on his chest and who’s weak to Kryptonite named Superman? Sure.
You want to sue me for making a flying, black caped, bald black dude who’s weak to white women with badonkadonks called Superman? Fuck You. If we’re playing by those rules, then Nietzche’s estate if he has one needs to sue the fuck out of DC Comics.
There is a miscalculation in your story though, in the Dragon ball franchise usually the material released later has to introduce more power levels and make the story for a lack of a better word, more retarded. Just look at Dragonball GT and the Bardock movie where he went back in time and became super saiyan. This is so TOEI can keep making money off straight to dvd movies. So therefore Goku will have super saiyan psychic powers that blow up everything due to not suffering from infantile brain damage, and this totally makes sense because Gambit totally could do that when he got his brain matter placed back into his head, and everyone knows Gambit is a poser and Goku can do better anything and everything better than him.
Also it seems that the Dragonball Kai sound guy, Kenji Yamamoto stole from stuff like Avatar (the movie about blue Pocahantas and a paraplegic John Smith getting it on. Not the one that had the name first and got raped M. Night Shyamalamamaman [sp?]).
[media=youtube]go5FxZdyO80[/media]