Maybe somebody needs to move this issue to someplace more visible.
I'd like to introduce the concept of Movie Patents. I'd register a patent for the plot device of having the bad guy be the main character's best friend, with additional clauses for being his boss, advisor, or partner. I wouldn't ever make any movies. I'd just sit back and collect royalties from everybody who used my idea.
The reason behind this is that maybe then people who matter would actually notice how silly this concept is. It's so plainly obvious that it's a bad idea that regular people can finally understand what's going on. Eventually, people with the ability to make changes might actually find themselves forced to make changes.
Software, as big as it is, is just not that big. This issue can piss every single one of us off, and it won't make the NBC Nightly News. It can't piss off the people it needs to piss off in order to get it fixed, so chances are it will stay unfixed indefinitely.
"A Plot or Storyline Patent application seeks to patent the underlying novel and nonobvious storyline of a fictional story. Such protection is to be contrasted from the copyright protection of one of millions of possible expressions of an underlying storyline. The field of possible applications is broad, and may tentatively be split into an entertainment-advertisement dichotomy. The epitome of an entertainment application is an original, thought-provoking, often shockingly unique movie plot. Several potentially patentable features may have been found in the plots of, Memento, The Thirteenth Floor, Being John Malkovich, Butterfly Effect, The Game, Fight Club, The Matrix, Total Recall, The Truman Show, Minority Report, The Village, Groundhog Day, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, to name a few. The epitome of an advertisement application is one of the many thoughtfully hilarious Super Bowl commercials."
The Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society had an article on the subject in 2004. An inventor/agent who'd read the article promptly submitted several applications.
And beyond just being... questionable as a type of invention, the applications seem eager to see just how broad such claims might be:
1. A process of relaying a story having a timeline and a unique plot involving characters, comprising: indicating that a first character experiences dj vu to mask an actual event.
The problem is that as soon as you put the word "software" in front of the word "patent" during a discussion you can actually see eyes glaze over and brains shut off in the person you are talking to.
It's just easier for representatives to ignore this. That or they see the issue as niche, and therefore don't pay attention.
Yes, the same ridiculous rules that apply to software MUST apply to something more mainstream so that it gets noticed.
That is actually a very insightful way to look at it. Furthermore, You can have the same story, but the value of the movie is not in the plot itself. The value is on how well it is executed. Acting, dialogs, photography, special effects, etc.
That's kind of the point. Patenting plots is directly analogous to patenting software: you can have the same feature, but the value is in how well it is executed: language it was written in, data structures used, graphic design elements, etc.
Totally not copyright. Copyright applies to software too, but patents are the one everyone cares about. The idea of patenting plots is a good one. In fact, it might even be legal _except_ that everything that can be done in a book has been done already. Software is such a young field these immodest trolls are able to exploit them.
So to clarify: Saying two different movies both of which has the "friend turns out to be bad" are copies is wrong; that's just not enough of a similarity to base a copyright case on. However, if you happen to find a way to patent it (which you probably could if there hasn't been prior art), you would be able to sue for patent infringement.
>"everything that can be done in a book has been done already"
Doubtful. But, given that if diversity in movie plots benefits mankind (!) then offering an incentive to develop a new plot could be worth it. If the plot is entirely disclosed so that it can be used for free by anyone in a few years then is this not a benefit?
But copyright is not about mere similarity: if two people reach the same plot device completely independently (or from a common source) there is no copyright infringement case. Whereas the same thing in the world of patents is a patent infringement case.
Additionally, to own copyright, you would actually have to _create_ a product/movie/etc. How any patent holder can sue without actually creating or using their own patent is beyond me.
I think the point mluiten is making is that you have to actually create the content (or pay someone to create it) to have copyright, whereas you don't have to implement anything to have a patent granted. Since content creation is much more expensive than content distribution, there would be no economic incentives for "copyright trolls."
Actually there are lots of copyright trolls, especially in the cases where the content is cheap to make (as in time invested) and cheap to distribute -- like news articles, music or photography.
Say you've got a popular photo, you can transfer the litigious rights of it to a copyright troll and that troll will then sue everyone using it.
Copyrights are indeed transferable. In fact, many of the most well-known free software projects rely on this fact (e.g., should they want to relicense, or to make it easier to defend copyright ownership in court by having a single legal entity behind it).
I'd like to introduce the concept of Movie Patents. I'd register a patent for the plot device of having the bad guy be the main character's best friend, with additional clauses for being his boss, advisor, or partner. I wouldn't ever make any movies. I'd just sit back and collect royalties from everybody who used my idea.
The reason behind this is that maybe then people who matter would actually notice how silly this concept is. It's so plainly obvious that it's a bad idea that regular people can finally understand what's going on. Eventually, people with the ability to make changes might actually find themselves forced to make changes.
Software, as big as it is, is just not that big. This issue can piss every single one of us off, and it won't make the NBC Nightly News. It can't piss off the people it needs to piss off in order to get it fixed, so chances are it will stay unfixed indefinitely.