They know. Please discuss your complaint with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Fortunately, that is not quite correct - as a legitimate owner of that 'physical manifestation' legally, you are buying a copy and under copyright law you are an "Owner of a copy" with specific rights and privileges granted by law regardless of whether or not you have a license - variants of this are mentioned in copyright law under the "Limitations on Exclusive rights" sections.

Unfortunately rather than formally defining it as a "Term of Art" in the definitions, they use slightly different phrasing in different spots - "Owner of a copy" under 109, "Ownership of any copy" under 106 (Closest to a definition they have), "Ownership of a sound recording" under that section, so what rights you have is defined in various subsections, with no one term to search, and it's generally defined as a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner - but of course, not always - that would be too simple - {G}.

In any case, generally there is no legal requirement of a license as such - as near as I can tell, there's actually no legislative definition of a license as such, only what some court districts do or don't recognize as a contract or something else - like "Owner of Copy" it's used in various spots, but has even less definition than owner of a copy.

It would be a lot better all around if those were both defined, moved to 101: Definitions, and used in a consistent manner. Can we start a Bugtrack server for U.S. code?

Jonnan

Yes, you learn from the mistakes of the past, and apply them in the present as to prevent repeating the mistakes in the future.

It's not so much the historical context I mind. It's the stereotyping and sweeping generalizations I mind.

If that's the case, then the Philippine and Chinese governments and legal systems should be hunting them down.

I second that!!!!

Let's try to keep this thread on topic, guys. If you want to discuss Philipine independence or economics, please do so in a separate thread.

US authors pretty much ripping off of manga, anime, or foreign authorships is nothing new.  Star Wars, for instance, is essentially a retelling of The Hidden Fortress without any formal recognizance and reworked in several ways to become a "different work."

More recently, English torrenting of subtitled and/or dubbed copyrighted material in manga and anime is pretty standard issue sourcing for such material in the US.  I don't know that the US government is doing anything to stop this kind of piracy from occuring.  It doesn't help that rights to publish in US for those materials have come into the hands of people who don't really care about the quality of the product or, it seems, even if they're released at all.  That said, legal shutdowns of subbing sites are few and far between.  They operate openly for the most part.

Too, a Philippine author who sought refuge under the WIPO would have to apply for restitution in one of its offices which isn't really common in these parts, and the WIPO itself seems to drag its feet when it comes to cases of this sort.  My cousin is a freelance artist so my limited familiarity with how intellecutal property is handled locally comes from him.  He doesn't seem to think that he can make any headway against an American copyright thief should any of his works get stolen and sold for money under a publishing house.

I wouldn't say it's shooting yourself in the foot to unilaterally declare copyright laws.  Yes, it does sort of erode your moral authority when it comes to foreign protection for your own copyrights, but then again, your businesses can more or less steal ideas, mechanics, stories and such wholesale.

Plaigiarism isn't the only way to violate copyright.  Making information publicly available for consumption is, too.  I could direct you to torrent sites for the downloading of manga and anime straight off the net without paying Tokyopop or any Japanese publisher or mangaka anything at all, but I would rather not be responsible for direct closure actions against them, and they're easy to search out anyways.

Look for torrents for the downloading for Death Note manga or anime or the acquisition of Cowboy Bebop, the latter of which is already for legal sale under a proper publisher in the US.

Activity in torrent sites is NOT beyond government ability to stifle.  Governments can and do shut down sites and servers if they wish to.  It might be a little heavy-handed to do so, but it's not without cause, if you're into IP protection seriously.

Of particular note, is the Shaolin brand.  Shaolin is not a generic name.  Shaolin is the name and branding of the Shaolin Temple in China.  They own the Shaolin IP and all things associated with it, by copyright convention.  Until recently, Americans used and barnded "Shaolin" products indiscriminately.  There have been some efforts to clamp down on this brand name incursion, but the Temple is still having difficulties with it, I believe, since Americans like to think that Shaolin is a name that's public domain.

That said, the current IP conglomerates do tend to behave in tight money-fisted merchant-house like machavellian cash sucking.  I would have to agree that nobody grabs and takes money like an multinational IP company (like Sony).

The Star Wars-Hidden Fortress thing is neither plagiarism nor copyright violation, and plagiarism is wrong whether or not copyright is involved. If George Lucas really did rely heavily on Hidden Fortress (I don't know what he's said on the subject, just other folks' gossip), it's an example of the ancient practice of using art that you know as a place to start creating your own. Sophocles did not make up his plots from whole cloth, nor did Shakespeare. Kurosawa "ripped off" Shakespeare with Throne of Blood in just the way you complain about George Lucas and Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress. For all I know, there's a classic Japanese myth behind Kurosawa's film.

The notion of branding is increasingly fascinating to me, but seems a bit off-topic for this thread. That said, thanks for tipping me to this story. I had no idea that the modern Shaolin might be starting to go Disney, but it looks possible. If I were a practitioner, I'd be pretty darn ticked off to find my temple treating itself as a mere brand.

Not sure if this thread is being honestly followed now that other issues seem to have hijcked it but I will list me thoughts very briefly:

1. cd keys = bad.  I lost mine to Dominions after playing for well over a year.  now I have to repurchase

2. DRM = not bad if implemented correctly.  Limit to how many times I load the software sucks but other than that, people are making a bigger issue out of it just to hear themselves bloviate on the subject.

3. secondary programs needed to run software - i.e. needed to validate software everytime = bad.How many times do I have to prove i purchased the game?

4. internet connection needed to validate program = bad (unless purchased as a download).  Assumes an internet connection is always available. 

IMO, the best way to validate the software is the simplest way - don't!  The DRM cry babies will not have an issue to scream about, money will be saved on failed DRM initiatives and pirates, who already crack DRM programs anyway, will continue on their way.  There will always be the scurge of software pirates but are losses caused by their actions any greater than the lost customer base, due to DRM software, and wasted DRM R&D investments?

Hmmm.

After reading and re-reading the original posts both here and in the "Should Stardock provide..." thread, the question big developers seem to propose to you is thus:

We see that Impulse works for you. We too would like to operate this way, without the emphasis on DRM. Can you please offer us a means to include DRM in a non-DRM Impulse platform?

You want to provide options to other companies in regards to their property as represented & offered upon Impulse.

1. Offering intrusive DRM code is unacceptable (i.e. StarForce).
2. Requiring online authentication everytime you play is unacceptable.
3. Requiring online authentication everytime you simply fire up the program is unacceptable.
4. Constant reporting of activity to a remote server (i.e. tracking user activity) is unacceptable.
5. Inability to play without Internet access is unacceptable.
6. Dynamically updated in-game ad system is unacceptable.
7. Background processes required for running program is unacceptable.
8. Hardcoding some arbitrary limit on installs that require affirmative action upon the part of the user to change or update or port over as PC configurations & hardware & underlying software change is unacceptable.

Possible compromise on Stardock`s end seems to comprise the following, my own opinions based upon severity of inconvenience and accepted norms in PC computing to date.

1. CD in the drive anytime you play, offline or online.
2. Registration necessary for online acquisition of patches & updates.
3. CD key entry upon initial install.
4. Even the old 'keyword lookup from the manual' trick (think Microprose DarkLands days).
5. A floating multi-system installation activation, such that you may run 'X' copies of the game you own on any system configuration you own, up to that 'X' number at a time. Similar to the original WarCraft 2 multiplayer scheme (up to 3 off a single disc). Based upon household location, not internet IP # (some fortunates have multiple IPs available for their homes; identity must be by system *prior* to venturing forth onto the internet).
6. Pursuant to #6, a field during registration declaring how many systems exist in the household, and therefore how many installs will be perpetrated beyond the original.

Perhaps a manual keyword lookup could be combined with unbridled multi-system home use, such that the installation of the game on any system requires nothing but the CD key, whereas simultaneous usage of 1 or more *copies* of the game requires a manual keyword check. That enforces the "I purchased this" physicality of the product, gives owners the flexibility they/we want in regards to our purchase, and is not threatening in any way to our OS`s and hardware. It enables a good LAN sampling for those who might partake of an evening`s entertainment in person, helping advertise & demo the game, but preserves online play for registered base copies only. In my example of WarCraft 2 for example, a limit of 3 multiplayer LAN systems running off a single registered disc would be good. You could also in this special circumstance require the user to retrieve his/her official game disc and simply allow for a CD check once to enable the other 2 LAN copies up to the moment the original install is turned off for the session (i.e. exitted, rebooted).

I apologize for not having more substantial concrete suggestions. DRM doesn`t work. Trying to find a compromise between that and the system we know works is a dilemmic challenge (!). I hope this is of some value to you folks; perhaps others in the forum can build upon these ideas.

It seems to me that other companies must sacrifice some of their allegiance to DRM if they wish to find a home on Impulse - some measure of compromise of their own inflexibilities rather than simply looking to Stardock to make a change. If Stardock is the only side to offer such change, then the competing purveyors are not changing at all. They would only be succeeding at saturating the digital download marketscape with their DRM-borne product. And that is not what consumers want. 

These people can`t possibly be serious if they elect to change nothing on their part. If they cannot convince their companies to be more reasonable, that is not Stardock`s problem. It must remain their problem, to work out or not to work out... to whatever end that brings them. In the meantime you continue to validate your business model and philosophies, growing, whilst they continue to be hated by a broader and broader audience that can see there is a better way.

Don`t let industry Old Boys sully your approach with doubt & naysaying. Continue to lead by example. Eventually more and more will come around.

@WarlokLord - great post (reply 293) - karma given.

WIlly, I don't remember if you've stated a position on the used-copy question. I agree that it is a different question entirely than DRM vs. piracy. I still think we all need to get over (c) eventually, but the user-centered license seems much better than the per-machine model in the mean time. I want to support the used copy market, but it's pretty hard when I both oppose (c) in general and want a practical short-term approach that keeps devs decently paid and bothers end users as little as possible.

I don't think it stuck--I still see 0 karma for WarlokLord as of this post.

Edit: I just gave karma to WL and it seems to have kicked a clot through the pipe--both Spartan and I show on his list now. And on a completely unrelated note, something about stacking a selected quote with a full-post quote seemed to bury my @WIlly chunk inside a messy quote block. Hopefully stripping the full-quote tags will clean it up.

Interesting. I see just a +2 in the thread, but when I click his karma link, I see two entries from Spartan, apparently one before and one after the one I gave. I wonder if this should get a mention in the Forum Issues area (I know they're short-handed on web dev now, but maybe just a record there could be helpful?).

Edit: OK, there's definitely some kind of "first point" delay going on, at least at the moment. This stuff made me finally notice that no one had thrown a point Spartan's way, so I did, and I still see 0 even after several page refreshes. I got no error in the karma pop-up and follwoing Spartan's karma link says he has no karma.