Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!stride!l5comp!scotty From: scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: The Final Word Message-ID: <328@l5comp.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Aug-87 07:40:37 EDT Article-I.D.: l5comp.328 Posted: Mon Aug 17 07:40:37 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Aug-87 04:40:39 EDT References: <3737@well.UUCP> Reply-To: scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) Distribution: world Organization: L5 Computing, Edmonds, WA Lines: 141 Summary: A word on the final word. In article <3737@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > They also feel that they have to aggressively protect their >copyright, or they will lose it forever. Protect it for WHAT?!?! Mickey Mouse I understand, Disney makes it's living off things like Mickey. If everyone had Mickey then obviously Disney would have some trouble pushing Mickey as a money making mouse. Last I heard Pixar made it's money off software and hardware. Not off selling movies or images of unicycles, be they juggling balls or not. What exactly does Pixar think it's accomplishing by aggressively protecting their copyright??? "The world will be safe from juggling Unicycles! We hold the copyrights and we promise not to allow them out. And if alien unicycles invade we'll prosecute to the fullest extent of the law." :-) > Guggenheim said that my animation is very good. So good, in fact, >that they fear that mass public confusion would result if the animation >were to go public. They fear that, no matter how many disclaimers are Like I said, Pixar is making this Amiga out as being competitive with Pixar. >pasted on the thing, it might be mistakenly assumed that Pixar contributed >to the Amiga version, or that Pixar used Amigas to generate the actual film. If the orginal Pixar creation was available for people to see then the chance for confusion might be reduced. But then again if Pixar is so sure we'd all be confused then maybe the Pixar original isn't all that better hmm? And for yet another radical thought, following along behind my comments about being impressive... Copyrights were created for ONE reason. They were created so people would distribute their works without fear of their being unfairly used against the author's wishes. The key phrase above is DISTRIBUTE! If Pixar isn't going to do anything with unicycles juggling balls why should "We The People" grant them a copyright? Here we have Leo who it seems is interested in publishing his work for all to see, I haven't heard a word from Pixar. When you get right down to it the copyright law is there for US, not for Pixar. Pixar has a copyright only because WE gave it to them. We gave the copyright to Pixar so that they would make their work available. If they won't let me have Leo's, where can I get theirs? If they won't let me have theirs then I WANT LEO'S!!!! > Now, let me make this next sentence perfectly clear. **DO NOT FLAME >PIXAR ABOUT THIS!** I am not a lawyer, I'm a technician. Legal questions >are best left to lawyers (and related lesser primates :-) ). Please know >that Pixar has access to a large and well-trained legal staff, backed by the >full faith and credit of Steve Jobs. If they say it's a copyright >violation, it probably is. I have no desire to have a judge tell me for Ever been to a lawyer Leo? It's like making book. They don't say "That's a clear violation" they say the odds are such and such that we could defend that position sucessfully. Lawyers also CLEARLY understand the concept of "Who is this guy? Yeah I don't see any trouble fluffing him off in court. He couldn't afford the battle it would take to beat us." In any battle of Pixar vs Leo you're right, you'll lose probably even if you're in the right simply because they could afford to keep the battle going for decades if needed. Just look at the USA versus IBM or AT&T. IBM and AT&T have been able to maintain legal positions that they knew were losers for extensive periods of time. Purely based on the amount of money they had to gum the works with. (Then one day AT&T "woke up" and thought "Hey! We give in, dump the baby bells and we get to keep ALL the long distance money!") > As a fully-paid-up and respectable member of The International >Hackers' Guild, and as a person with (what I like to believe is) a >well-defined and noble code of ethics, I can and do respect their position, >and will abide by it. Time to break down and do the recumbent bike juggling balls before Pixar can move in and get the exclusive copyright on that eh? 1/2 :) > Hey! Don't look so disappointed. It's not like I'm never going to >do another animation.... That it's the issue here Leo. It's just that we're being shown once more that the little guy is growing more powerless with every year that goes by. When people make a habit of buying the pot at a poker game people learn to not play with those people any more. Sure Pixar may have a good hand, but yours looked pretty good too. But instead of finding out who has the better hand we have Pixar step in and raise the stakes to the point where it's crazy to go with "gut instincts" or feelings or even cold hard facts. By shaking lawyers in yer face Pixar has clearly shown that they don't want to risk your hand being proven the better. If they had you by the short one's you'd be in court. How to react? If Pixar doesn't wish to make copies of Red's Dreams available to me then I guess I fight back the only way I can. I slap on restrictions in the copyrights on my works that keep Pixar from being able to use them. They won't share with me, why should I share with them? Fairly simple logic. And so that Pixar can't buy out the pot on me let me state for the record that I'm not calling for anyone else to do the same. That might give Pixar enough of a hook to go after me for "conspiracy to deprive" them of something. And even though I could probably beat 'em I sure as hell couldn't AFFORD to beat 'em. Sad sad sad state of affairs if you ask me. Hell next thing you know the damn pirates will be sueing me for cutting in on their livelyhood with the "Pirated software? Just say *NO*!". All I need is a rich one coming after me and then I'm screwed right? Then again maybe Mrs. Reagan holds the trademark on "Just say *NO*!" and the feds will be after me? The courts have always said "Ignorance is no defense" in this country. But in a world grown as complex as ours how much longer can we afford this? Sure we have lawyers, but even lawyers are specialized now. And there will come a time where no single person can handle the whole mess. And even if there were one or two only the big corporations would be able to afford 'em... Sad sad sad damn state of affairs. One last thought before I hit the sack, is 'Pixar' trademarked? With these guys being so obviously anxious to aggressively defend stuff I guess we'd better start saying 'Pixar is a trademark of...' if it's needed. As well as find out what ELSE they have trademarked/copyrighted. Anyone heard of a service like those the doctors have that they can call to find out if a patient has a history of mal-pratice suits? Maybe a software industry listing of trademarks etc with ratings on how likely we are to get sued over not saying "XXX is a trademark of...". Like what are the odds on being bagged for using un*x without the *? Then when it's late at night we can look a word up and say hmm odds are 1/100,000 against me getting sued, I think I'll skip the trademark notice, I'm tired. Just one man's view. It ain't cast in concrete, discussion YES, flames NO. To Pixar, if yall are going to make video tapes of Red's Dreams available please E-Mail me the details. I've just never seen ANY offers from Pixar to buy/rent/freebie anything, be it unicycles or Luxo lamps. Scott Turner -- UUCP-stick: stride!l5comp!scotty | If you want to injure my goldfish just make UUCP-auto: scotty@l5comp.UUCP | sure I don't run up a vet bill. GEnie: JST | "The bombs drop in 5 minutes" R. Reagan "Pirated software? Just say *NO*!" S. Turner