Post by: Foamybeard on June 05, 2013, 04:10:32 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Now, while I admit that the popular opinion on Piracy is that it is "wrong", I'm one of those that 1) Question the legitimacy of authority if it is heavily influenced by outside sources, such as things like Record Labels, or Movie Corporations, and 2) Refuses to accept popular opinion as truth.
Anyway, I'd like to see what Bay12's opinion on Piracy is, and maybe If we're lucky, we might get to see a debate unfold.
Post by: Foamybeard on June 05, 2013, 04:13:07 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on June 05, 2013, 04:26:50 pm
Post by: Foamybeard on June 05, 2013, 04:33:49 pm
I feel like there should be a study on how many people even bother looking for a search function before posting topics.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a rule that said I should use one, and most forums that have them have really complex, inane ones that aren't worth using.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on June 05, 2013, 04:35:53 pm
I feel like there should be a study on how many people even bother looking for a search function before posting topics.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a rule that said I should use one, and most forums that have them have really complex, inane ones that aren't worth using.
That's a very well put together thought.
Post by: Foamybeard on June 05, 2013, 05:09:56 pm
I feel like there should be a study on how many people even bother looking for a search function before posting topics.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a rule that said I should use one, and most forums that have them have really complex, inane ones that aren't worth using.
That's a very well put together thought.
I'm not sure if you are making fun of me... Oh well.
Post by: itisnotlogical on June 29, 2013, 03:25:31 pm
Games that haven't had an international release (i.e. Mother 3/Earthbound 2), aren't available on an easily-accessible platform (C64 games, floppy disk games that haven't been ported) or are no longer available from the original manufacturer (can't think of any examples right now but I'm sure they exist) are free game, so to speak.
Suppose I was debating between emulating Battletoads or finding a used copy. To my knowledge, it is not available on any incarnation of the Virtual Console or XBLA (and if it were, I would buy one of those). If I were to buy a used copy, nobody from Rare would receive any money from my purchase. OTOH, if I were to emulate the game, nobody at Rare would be losing money since there is currently no way to buy the game from them. Either way, it's a net loss of 0 for Rare.
Post by: kaijyuu on June 29, 2013, 03:45:27 pm
Post by: ed boy on June 29, 2013, 04:52:38 pm
Considering that the earlier thread was two months ago and this thread was only abandoned one month ago, I think I'll chip in my two cents here.That subset of piracy is known as abandonware. It's sufficiently different from conventional piracy that it would probably need a seperate discussion (and I'm not sure there would be a much of a discussion about abandonware, as the only reason that I've ever heard why one wouldn't support abandonware is a slippery slope argument).
Games that haven't had an international release (i.e. Mother 3/Earthbound 2), aren't available on an easily-accessible platform (C64 games, floppy disk games that haven't been ported) or are no longer available from the original manufacturer (can't think of any examples right now but I'm sure they exist) are free game, so to speak.
Suppose I was debating between emulating Battletoads or finding a used copy. To my knowledge, it is not available on any incarnation of the Virtual Console or XBLA (and if it were, I would buy one of those). If I were to buy a used copy, nobody from Rare would receive any money from my purchase. OTOH, if I were to emulate the game, nobody at Rare would be losing money since there is currently no way to buy the game from them. Either way, it's a net loss of 0 for Rare.
There is another sort-of-piracy-but-not-really situation that I have encountered: Suppose a company makes a game, and it is very popular. A while later, an individual comes along and spends a lot of time making a very large, very extensive mod for that game. Given the amount of effort the modder puts into making their mod, they decide to try and charge people for using it. What is bay12's opinion on this?
Post by: Criptfeind on June 29, 2013, 04:56:33 pm
Post by: Bdthemag on June 29, 2013, 05:06:40 pm
Regarding the whole modding questions, even if a fan makes an extensive mod for the game it's ridiculous to try to sell it. Firstly, there may be issues regarding something being sold that uses a retail and copyrighted game as its base. Secondly, I think it's against the whole spirit of the modding community as a whole. The modding community has always been groups of talented people providing quality works to the public, which encourages more people to take interest who might in turn make their own work, so you have a community that's constantly producing high quality content for free. A lot of people who make these quality mods end up getting hired at game companies anyways, so it's beneficial for them even if they don't charge. If people suddenly start deciding to charge for mods, and it becomes a popular standard, then the quality of said mods would drop because the main interest of the community then would be to make money, as opposed to making a quality product.
Post by: Sigulbard on June 29, 2013, 06:07:29 pm
90% of the people I know (as friends) have used piratebay at some point in their lives. The other 10% play on consoles.
EDIT: Took out all the info of what I have torrented
EDIT2: Oh sorry, didn't realize this discussion was dead.
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 29, 2013, 06:13:27 pm
I usually don't have a problem with pirating, probably because I'm a data-stealing taffer myself sometimes.
90% of the people I know (as friends) have used piratebay at some point in their lives. The other 10% play on consoles.
EDIT: Took out all the info of what I have torrented
EDIT2: Oh sorry, didn't realize this discussion was dead.
This discussion is not dead. It is currently enjoying the status of necromancy. I'll PTW it in case it lives.
Post by: Sigulbard on June 29, 2013, 06:20:05 pm
This discussion is not dead. It is currently enjoying the status of necromancy. I'll PTW it in case it lives.It's dead by my standards, no matter how necromanicalized it may be.
Post by: alexandertnt on June 29, 2013, 08:55:27 pm
If people suddenly start deciding to charge for mods, and it becomes a popular standard, then the quality of said mods would drop because the main interest of the community then would be to make money, as opposed to making a quality product.
Given those charging money would be in competition with those who are not, they could only make money by making a higher-quality product than the freely available ones...
i.e. I dont believe the whole "people who charge money for something don't care about the quality/art etc". Infact, if they made some money they might even be able to work on it full time and produce a much more detailed and high-quality product. I do not see how making money and making quality software are mutually exclusive, is it not possible to do both?
Post by: Bdthemag on June 29, 2013, 09:03:04 pm
If people suddenly made money off of mods, regardless of the quality, then it'd be apparent to people inside and outside the modding community that good money can be made off of mods. The drop of quality wouldn't be instant, but it'd basically resort to more and more people charging for their mods, until a majority of the community did so. Then it would basically just be modders trying to see how little work they can put into something, before they stop making money (Which is how the current game industry is.)If people suddenly start deciding to charge for mods, and it becomes a popular standard, then the quality of said mods would drop because the main interest of the community then would be to make money, as opposed to making a quality product.
Given those charging money would be in competition with those who are not, they could only make money by making a higher-quality product than the freely available ones...
i.e. I dont believe the whole "people who charge money for something don't care about the quality/art etc". Infact, if they made some money they might even be able to work on it full time and produce a much more detailed and high-quality product. I do not see how making money and making quality software are mutually exclusive, is it not possible to do both?
And as I mentioned in my post, it'd bring up issues regarding selling something heavily based off of a company's work, along with being heavily against the spirit and history of the modding community in general.
Post by: LordBucket on June 29, 2013, 09:46:09 pm
what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy
I admit I find that amusing. But it doesn't change my position. It is possible to have a society where copyright is in use and people pay for material and it is possible to have a society where copyright is not in use and people don't pay for material. I've never seen a compelling argument for why the copyright model is preferable.
Post by: Moghjubar on June 29, 2013, 10:45:32 pm
Off the port bow, they raise the skull and crossbones and vow to give no quarter as they waylay your ship. They seize all your goods and make you tremble in fear... then they use their expert carpenters and craftsmen to make perfect duplicates of your cargo, and determine which port you are going to. They then sail off, leaving you bewildered, and give away their goods for free there, thus crashing the market and making your journey either less profitable or unprofitable.
These pirates are the scourge of the inter-seas.
Post by: Criptfeind on June 29, 2013, 10:48:48 pm
and it is possible to have a society where copyright is not in use and people don't pay for material.
What do you mean by this? Like. Some sorta world where people are in some crazy hivemind? Or maybe some world where we have infinite resources? Oh. I know, a world where people just love living at a low basic level of consumption?
Post by: Vector on June 29, 2013, 10:52:09 pm
I am really not into the other kind of piracy. I've done some semi-professional translation work; most of it is available online, and if some shithead decided to steal what little of it we didn't give away for free I'd be pretty fucking pissed, because we're getting almost no funds as-is for something that was a huge amount of work. Like, c'mon, at least give us our pittance.
I'm hoping we'll start doing some sort of online "Library of Alexandria" deal where you pay in every month and creators get a little money every time their thing is read.
Post by: LordBucket on June 30, 2013, 12:03:11 am
What do you mean by this?
In retrospect my choice of the word "material" was vague. I'm referring to intangible creative works.
Let's work with a metaphor: nobody pays for air. It exists in sufficient abundance with sufficient availability that there's no reason to. But you could, hypothetically pump trillions of tons of toxic gas into the atmosphere, build a bunch of domes with clean air, build a limited number of air purifiers, and then charge for breathing your clean air. By creating artificial scarcity for something that was otherwise available in abundance, you create a market for it. And if you grew up in a society where paying for air was the norm and suggested to people that it would be possible to have a society where air was free...no doubt they'd ridicule you and ask who would pay for it on your behalf, how could you expect people to do the work to make the clear air available, etc.
Copyright creates artificial scarcity for intellectual/creative works where scarcity does not otherwise exist. This is its purpose.
If I bring an intellectual "creative" work into the world for which physical matter is not essential, it exists in that same sort of "sufficient abundance" as air. I wrote this thread post, and dozens or hundreds of people can see it at no additional cost or effort from me. You can copy it and reproduce it endlessly for trivial effort without taking it away from me. The same is true if I write a song, or a computer program, or take a digital picture, or make a movie...any of these things can be endlessly copied by others without taking it away from me
Anticipated response:
"Oh, but if you copy/pirate creative works, then you're "taking away" the opportunity for the creator to make money from it."
Yes, but that opportunity only exists because of the existence of artificial scarcity created by copyright and social stigma. You wouldn't suggest that I'm "taking away your opportunity to sell air" by discouraging factory pollution. It would be a silly argument. You wouldn't make it. The only reason you don't see copyright as a silly thing is because you've grown up in a society where it's the norm.
Now, yes...there do exist creative works for which there is significant cost to their creation. Obvious example: most movies cost dozens of millions of dollars to make. But, that is only so because we exist in a culture where the arbitrary convention is that movies are sold. There's no reason for that convention to exist except solely so that money can be made to change hands.
There is fundamentally no reason for copyright to exist except to enable people to artificially create scarcity in order to encourage the exchange of money.
Why is this a desirable goal?
Anticipated response:
"Because if people can't make money for what they do, they won't do it."
This is obviously untrue. Even in a society like ours where copyright does exist, there are still creators freely producing content because it's what they want to do. Yes, people sell books, but nevertheless people write and make their works freely available. Yes, microsoft makes and sells windows, but nevertheless there are people making and freely distributing operating systems. Yes, studios produce and sell porn, but nevertheless there's no shortage of it online. Music, art, software...take your pick, there are people out there making it because it's what they want to do and giving it away because they'd rather their work be appreciated than not.
I simply ask: if people will produce these things because they want to, because they enjoy it, if you are taking nothing from them by making copies of it...why is it better to create artificial scarcity and require that money be exchanged for it?
Post by: Solifuge on June 30, 2013, 12:18:58 am
Piracy just isn't what it used to be.
Off the port bow, they raise the skull and crossbones and vow to give no quarter as they waylay your ship. They seize all your goods and make you tremble in fear... then they use their expert carpenters and craftsmen to make perfect duplicates of your cargo, and determine which port you are going to. They then sail off, leaving you bewildered, and give away their goods for free there, thus crashing the market and making your journey either less profitable or unprofitable.
These pirates are the scourge of the inter-seas.
I liked the story... but I disagree with the sentiment at the end. The RIAA spins a tale of how piracy is destroying potential profits for music artists, but this is actually quite false. The decline we're seeing is in the Recording Industry's profits, not in the profits of the artists themselves. And it's not really due to piracy either; it's symptomatic of the Recording Industry becoming increasingly obsolete, thanks to new direct-distribution and direct-funding methods now available to artists. If artists are willing to adapt to a new market, they can reach their audience without needing to use the behemothic Record Labels as middlemen (middlemen who are notorious for profiting tremendously off of musicians, who only see a fraction of the profits their content actually earns). In fact, according to several studies conducted over the past decade or so, artists are doing better than ever, and it's thanks in part to the free sampling and word-of-mouth advertising enabled by peer-to-peer media piracy:
Quote from: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2012/08/online_piracy_isnt_a_problem039015.php
Smaller labels and smaller artists have seen significant benefits from online piracy. Waldfogel’s study (http://www.nber.org/papers/w17503) also found that the percentage of independent labels in the Pitchfork Top 100, a measure of the Top 100 tracks each year, rose from 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s to 60 percent in the 2000s. A 2007 study (http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/mgmt_fac/7/) in Management Science found that albums by artists with smaller labels last longer on the Billboard Top 100 in the era of digital than before it and another study (pdf) (http://bit.ly/116Gplj) in 2004 found that file sharing provides increased exposure for new artists and leads to income redistribution throughout the music industry. In addition, a just-released study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762451200008X) found that online file sharing has led to increased concert revenue for artists as online piracy has dispersed artists’ music more widely and given them a greater following.
I pirate, but only when I could never afford (or am completely unable to locate) the piece of software or media in question. And I make efforts to support the artist or creator, be it through advertising it to my friends, or eventually purchasing it if it turns out to be useful or valuable enough to me that I would have bought it. Personally, I think Peer-to-Peer file sharing is a part of the future of creative content distribution. If we embraced it, and handled it ethically as individuals, I think it has the potential to hugely benefit content creators.
Post by: Vector on June 30, 2013, 12:22:48 am
Post by: Solifuge on June 30, 2013, 12:40:25 am
It's vital to be conscious of how your patronage allows products you enjoy to exist... and to give support where support is due. I think if more merchants selling digitally-distributable content adopted the "pay what you want/can" scheme, and budgeted their operating costs accordingly, they could get all the benefit of Piracy, while still raising money.
We're undergoing a bit of an economic revolution, with digital distribution, crowd-sourced funding, open game-development alphas, etc. It's going to cause growing pains, but after we trim the fat left behind by old business paradigms, I think everyone will be better off.
Post by: Moghjubar on June 30, 2013, 12:47:16 am
Post by: Darkmere on June 30, 2013, 02:48:50 am
Obvious example: most movies cost dozens of millions of dollars to make. But, that is only so because we exist in a culture where the arbitrary convention is that movies are sold. There's no reason for that convention to exist except solely so that money can be made to change hands.
I hope I'm reading this wrong but... are you actually saying that if movies cost nothing to see, the hundreds of people involved in making a blockbuster movie would all just show up to work for years at a time to throw out a top-notch production that will get them absolutely zero monetary returns? People have to eat. To eat, they must get paid. No money -> no food -> no time to waste making a big movie that's a complete financial loss because no one paid to see it.
Post by: LordBucket on June 30, 2013, 04:56:18 am
are you actually saying that if movies cost nothing to see, the hundreds of people involved in making a blockbuster movie
would all just show up to work for years at a time to throw out a top-notch production that will get them absolutely zero monetary returns?
There are so many ways I can answer this question. Let's start with this:
It depends on what your expectations are.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/blockbuster
"thing of great power or size, in particular a movie, book, or other product that is a great commercial success"
If your definition of a successful movie is that it made a lot of money, then by definition, no...a movie nobody paid to see probably isn't going to be a blockbuster. But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that you're not trying to trick me with clever wordplay, and that you meant more generally "a good movie."
And the answer to that is yes.
Imagine if you were to go to your local college or put an ad in the paper that said "actors and film crew needed for production that will be seen by millions of people worldwide. Must commit to 20 hours a week for a year. No pay." Would you get volunteers? ABSOLUTELY you would get volunteers. All you need to do to see evidence is that is go to any local community theater, and ask the performers and tech crew if they're being paid. i'll give you hint: they aren't. I know, because I did stagework for years. I also spent two years going on Hollywood cattle calls and stood in lines with hundreds of people at a time auditioning for roles. There's no shortage of people who'd be willing to invest years of their life for fame and glory to create movies without being paid for it.
True...Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie and Industrial Light and Magic probably won't be on your list of volunteers, but how important is that?
The film industry only exists in its current form because there are so many billions of dollars at stake. But would films continue to be made if what I suggest were to come to pass? Absolutely they would. How many thousands of unpaid man hours have been put into Linux? How many thousands of unpaid manhours have gone into deviantart? How many thousands of unpaid manhours have been spent by local bands of friends who like to play music together and are occasionally asked to perform somewhere? What's so special about the film industry that you think people won't make movies if they're not paid for it?
Or...if you want to look at it another way, take a look at this list:
http://vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-100-most-subscribed-channels
Do you think the Smosh crew get paid a salary for what they do? Do you think Teamfourstar gets paid on a fixed salary basis? Collegehumor? I'm guessing they probably don't. There are other monetization options besides those used presently by the film industry, and obviously groups like these can exist for years at a time without the "I pay you to be in and/or edit my film then people pay to see it" model being used. Your inclusion of "zero monetary returns" in your question isn't necessarily valid.
...or...if you want to look at it yet another way...here are couple of movies you might have seen:
Primer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)): Filmed on a $7000 budget
Clerks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerks): Filmed on a $27,000 budget
Blair Witch Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blair_Witch_Project): Filmed on a $22,500 budget
Are these numbers within Kickstarter ranges? Yes, they are. But here's an interesting thing. Clerks? Films on $27,000. But it took $230,000 for post production, marketing and advertising in order to make it a commercial success. Quick google search...the average hollywood movie marketing cost is $40 million (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/20/business/fi-ct-movies20).
People writing stories, coding software, drawing art and making music because it's what they love to do and because they want to share it with the world don't need to spend millions of dollars marketing themselves. They don't need to spend millions of dollars hiring A-list actors to attract fanboys who sees movies because of who's in them. They don't need to spend millions of dollars on special effects in hopes of distracting people from the fact the the movies are not well made.
They don't need to do these things because they're creating art rather than trying to sell a product.
Movies could work on this sort of model. Would it be different? Yes. Would it work? Yes. Maybe you wouldn't have Avatar. Maybe you wouldn't have Titanic. But I could live with that.
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 30, 2013, 05:22:37 am
Or...if you want to look at it another way, take a look at this list:
http://vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-100-most-subscribed-channels
Do you think the Smosh crew get paid a salary for what they do? Do you think Teamfourstar gets paid on a fixed salary basis? Collegehumor? I'm guessing they probably don't. There are other monetization options besides those used presently by the film industry, and obviously groups like these can exist for years at a time without the "I pay you to be in and/or edit my film then people pay to see it" model being used. Your inclusion of "zero monetary returns" in your question isn't necessarily valid.
I hate to break it for you, but Google probably pays them literal fucktonnes from their partnership program. Just saying~
Post by: LordBucket on June 30, 2013, 05:37:22 am
Or...if you want to look at it another way, take a look at this list:
http://vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-100-most-subscribed-channels
Do you think the Smosh crew get paid a salary for what they do? Do you think Teamfourstar gets paid on a fixed salary basis? Collegehumor? I'm guessing they probably don't. There are other monetization options besides those used presently by the film industry, and obviously groups like these can exist for years at a time without the "I pay you to be in and/or edit my film then people pay to see it" model being used. Your inclusion of "zero monetary returns" in your question isn't necessarily valid.
I hate to break it for you, but Google probably pays them literal fucktonnes from their partnership program. Just saying~
...which is why "There are other monetization options" and "Your inclusion of "zero monetary returns" in your question isn't necessarily valid." is included in the part that you quoted.
"Just saying."
Post by: alexandertnt on June 30, 2013, 07:29:28 am
what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy
I admit I find that amusing. But it doesn't change my position. It is possible to have a society where copyright is in use and people pay for material and it is possible to have a society where copyright is not in use and people don't pay for material. I've never seen a compelling argument for why the copyright model is preferable.
Producing a game is alot of bloody hard labour, and it sort of tears people up inside to watch people enjoy the fruits of labour without contributing one bit.
It has nothing to do with society not existing, but making life harder for those who produce copyrighted material. You pay for someone to clean your car, why should someone not pay you for providing them with a game when you have spent 10 hours a day making it for the last who-knows-how-long? I think people who do make this material have every right to be entitled to be payed. they put the hard work and labour into it, its not like it was free to produce...
I think copyright has gone overboard, but I still think it is necessary or those who produce that copyrighted material will find their life significantly harder.
Quote
Movies could work on this sort of model. Would it be different? Yes. Would it work? Yes. Maybe you wouldn't have Avatar. Maybe you wouldn't have Titanic. But I could live with that.
But some people couldn't. Some people actually like these movies.
Quote
There is fundamentally no reason for copyright to exist except to enable people to artificially create scarcity in order to encourage the exchange of money.
Why is this a desirable goal?
Because producing these things is hard and time consuming. Money makes it easier. Tools are (very) expensive, time (no full-time job anymore) etc. The exchange of money makes it easier to produce things.
Post by: Criptfeind on June 30, 2013, 09:05:25 am
...which is why "There are other monetization options"
Which... Piracy and no copy right would still destroy. These people make money off mainly advertisements. At least for the most part. Merchandizing can sometimes be a significant part of it, but often not.
If you destroyed copy write, some of these people, although important to note that not all, it would likely effect less established brands, in the short term at least. Could have serious issues. Content aggregators could simply take the videos made, host them on their own site, run their own adds over them and not give a dime to the creators.
In fact. This is a thing that already happens. Although at least now people have a legal recourse and when a site does it too much and too openly they can be at least sorta stopped.
Anyway. I think we understand that occasionally larger enterprises are made, and are even good. But I am sorta wondering if you think that all large movies and games and such could and would be made in such a system. Or if you are saying you would rather have a system that is mostly tiny indie free games and movies (many of which nowadays make money based on the advertising system and could also be screwed over by no copywrite.) and the occasional mid sized piece of content.
Essentially, do you think a game like Skyrim could exist in the world you are envisioning, or do you want a world where games like that don't exist?
Although, going over the games I spend 99% of my time playing, yeah I don't think I would actually be effected by this, but still, I think most people would disagree with the second outcome.
Post by: Darkmere on June 30, 2013, 11:05:55 am
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2013, 11:10:17 am
Post by: Vector on June 30, 2013, 11:17:54 am
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 30, 2013, 11:31:29 am
Nah, you're assuming that a person will have the steam to complete even one magnum opus if it takes 10 or 15 years instead of 2 or 3.
First of all, IT LIVES
second of all let's not forget on whose forum we are shall we :3
i'm just going to point out things while not making an argument hope you don't mind
Post by: Vector on June 30, 2013, 11:34:38 am
Post by: LordBucket on June 30, 2013, 11:37:58 am
do you think a game like Skyrim could exist in the world you are envisioning,
or do you want a world where games like that don't exist?
Please humor me for a moment. It will be more fun to answer in this way.
*ahem*
Once upon a time, in a faraway fantasy world there was a race of creatures who used pressed wood-pulp sheets to store information. Collections of these sheets were known as "books" and there was a very special type of book known as an "encyclopedia."
The encyclopedia was a collection of these wold-pulp pages containing mostly text and a few black and white pictures on a number of topics. A typical 26 volume encyclopieda set might have as many as 40,000 articles. To collate and assemble this vast work might require as many as 72 full time employees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica#Staff) to edit and and supervise the project. These were people with families, being paid full-time wages and given medical and dental benefits.
Try to imagine being in that world, growing up in it...maybe even being one of those people who made a very good living for your whole family by building these marvelous devices.
And now...try to imagine someone telling you that you could have a magic "virtual" encyclopedia that instead of a few tens of thousands of articles would have over four million articles, that would be updated daily by an army of 70,000 editors. The pages would not be black and white but full color. And your editors would be so dedicated and vigilant that when a new event happened, it would be entered into your magic encyclopedia that very same day. In fact, they would compete with each other to see who could contribute the most current and accurate information. And the best part? You wouldn't have to pay them. They would do the work for free, as a hobby, for fun...because they wanted to.
If you were that person, hearing this...with your 26 volume encyclopedia set that you paid $800 for sitting on your shelf, and someone told you this...would you believe them?
And yet, nevertheless...http://en.wikipedia.org
Quote
>do you think a game like Skyrim could exist in the world you are envisioning
What do you think?
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2013, 11:55:48 am
There's plenty of people who can create beautiful things but wouldn't be able to keep together the motivation like Toady has, and there's nothing wrong with that.... which is one of those reasons cooperative ventures and FOSS software structures are so wonderful. There doesn't have to be people like Toady to create things like DF. There can be a bunch of people with limited motivation hopping in and out as time and motivation allows, and things still get done. There can be one primary driver and several people who contribute to limited degrees, that massively reduce development time or improve quality (I'd point to something like Tales of Maj'Eyal (http://te4.org) as an example of that). There's issues with that kind of structure that we're still working on, but, well, that's something that'll be hammered out in due time.
Nah, you're assuming that a person will have the steam to complete even one magnum opus if it takes 10 or 15 years instead of 2 or 3.I really think you're overestimating the time difference, here. From what I've seen, when you actually get the right team together, the development cycle between a commercial and non-commercial venture isn't that egregiously different. The primary "gap" right now is in regards to raw number of bodies -- commercial ventures have a much easier time distributing the work over a lot of people (since they can effectively bribe people into helping), but in a system where that possibility doesn't exist, you'd likely have a lot more volunteers. Less, yes, so the amount of projects would be lesser, but you'd still have the body count necessary to get projects done in a reasonable time frame. It would likely take more time, yes, due the smaller working group, but you'd be looking at maybe an extra year or two, not an extra decade.
Post by: Criptfeind on June 30, 2013, 12:00:36 pm
What do you think?
So.
No.
Post by: Vector on June 30, 2013, 12:13:40 pm
I'm not saying I'm the most important thing here, but I do want you to know that the copyright model is the best thing for certain kinds of creators right now. Don't act like we'll swap to crowd-sourcing and it will be happy funtimes for all the creators, who will happily provide their work for free without any recompense or recognition.
Post by: Bauglir on June 30, 2013, 12:23:46 pm
There's plenty of people who can create beautiful things but wouldn't be able to keep together the motivation like Toady has, and there's nothing wrong with that.Moreover, Toady gets paid from the work he does, in the form of donations, and makes an effort to maintain some control over DF-related intellectual property, as far as I can tell. He's not exactly a counterexample, except against the idea that corporate code farms are necessary for quality games, which I don't think is an argument Vector's making.
-snip-Those structures create different kinds of art than a single person working on their own vision, and they aren't prohibited by the existence of copyright or other IP law, so I'm not really sure how they're relevant.
EDIT: I be ninja'd again.
Post by: scriver on June 30, 2013, 12:31:28 pm
do you think a game like Skyrim could exist in the world you are envisioning,
or do you want a world where games like that don't exist?
Please humor me for a moment. It will be more fun to answer in this way.
*ahem*
Once upon a time, in a faraway fantasy world there was a race of creatures who used pressed wood-pulp sheets to store information. Collections of these sheets were known as "books" and there was a very special type of book known as an "encyclopedia."
The encyclopedia was a collection of these wold-pulp pages containing mostly text and a few black and white pictures on a number of topics. A typical 26 volume encyclopieda set might have as many as 40,000 articles. To collate and assemble this vast work might require as many as 72 full time employees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica#Staff) to edit and and supervise the project. These were people with families, being paid full-time wages and given medical and dental benefits.
Try to imagine being in that world, growing up in it...maybe even being one of those people who made a very good living for your whole family by building these marvelous devices.
And now...try to imagine someone telling you that you could have a magic "virtual" encyclopedia that instead of a few tens of thousands of articles would have over four million articles, that would be updated daily by an army of 70,000 editors. The pages would not be black and white but full color. And your editors would be so dedicated and vigilant that when a new event happened, it would be entered into your magic encyclopedia that very same day. In fact, they would compete with each other to see who could contribute the most current and accurate information. And the best part? You wouldn't have to pay them. They would do the work for free, as a hobby, for fun...because they wanted to.
If you were that person, hearing this...with your 26 volume encyclopedia set that you paid $800 for sitting on your shelf, and someone told you this...would you believe them?
And yet, nevertheless...http://en.wikipedia.orgQuote>do you think a game like Skyrim could exist in the world you are envisioning
What do you think?
So your answer, in less words, is "it could totally happen! You just have to take my word for it!" instead of explaining how it would work. With insinuations that our peasant minds just can't understand how or lacks the vision to.
Post by: WealthyRadish on June 30, 2013, 12:33:09 pm
So you have businesspeople (who know nothing about video games) deciding which games are made and paying developers the bare minimum they can, the vast majority of whom got into the industry out of passion for the medium. The game is rushed, buggy, and includes a bunch of crap the publisher forced in as a result of 'market research', but still manages a profit because it had an expensive marketing campaign that got people to preorder before realizing it was shit. Eventually the planets align and a publisher accidentally allows a fresh, new game to be good, and then that title is remade 12 times over 10 years until it's completely dead. I can't possibly imagine that this is the most effective way of making labor intensive games... maybe I've got it all wrong and all that was just my crazy bias, but it seems to me that the publisher model is getting less effective each year.
Post by: Vector on June 30, 2013, 12:35:53 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 30, 2013, 12:41:58 pm
To me this suggests that given modern media distribution methods, the current one to many "record agency" style method of distribution of material is outmoded. Platforms like Steam work well as a middle man that cuts out the middle man, so to speak. People will still need to charge for thier product, as people have to eat and pay rent. If you would give over your labour/time/skillset for free you are a chump.
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2013, 12:50:56 pm
[snip]... you seem to be assuming that lack of copyright necessarily entails lack of recognition, Vec, and that FOSS-style systems are going to turn those working within them into "cogs of someone else's message". Doesn't tend to work like that, from what I've seen (and it offers a good platform to get help gearing up one's own message). And it doesn't necessarily entail lack of recompense, either. Toady's a bit of an aberration, but donation driven or heavily supported efforts seem to be becoming more common. In a hypothetical where the current commercial option is a possibility, you'd almost certainly see more of that.
Those structures create different kinds of art than a single person working on their own vision, and they aren't prohibited by the existence of copyright or other IP law, so I'm not really sure how they're relevant.LB was bringing up a world sans copyright/without the kind of structures that produce big commercial games. Relevance comes because, well, those structures are how that sort of thing gets produced without commercial backing.
In any case, I haven't particularly noticed the copyright/etc. force being much better at getting single people working on their own vision out there than anything else. Usually the most it does is make it easier to obscure the efforts of those that supported 'em, least as I've seen.
So your answer, in less words, is "it could totally happen! You just have to take my word for it!" instead of explaining how it would work.Look to stuff like Open Morrowind. Point was, s'far as I could tell, that, hey, crowdsourcing and related efforts might just be able to do some pretty big stuff. People'll do things without direct monetary motivation sometimes.
If you would give over your labour/time/skillset for free you are a chump.... so the world's volunteers are... chumps. Right :-\
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 30, 2013, 12:54:22 pm
Post by: LordBucket on June 30, 2013, 12:56:37 pm
Moreover, Toady gets paid from the work he does, in the form of donations
Nothing about voluntary donations contradicts anything I'm promoting. I'm arguing againat copyright.
Quote
Those structures create different kinds of art than a single person working on their own vision, and they aren't prohibited by the existence of copyright or other IP law, so I'm not really sure how they're relevant.
What's so special about other forms that you believe they necessarily couldn't be constructed without copyright?
Let me try to break down my position.
I assert that:
1) Copyright is undesireable because copyright enforcement involves coersion and force. Saying that it's "nice" for people who provide things for us to benefit from doing so is is all well and good, but when you start fining people and throwing them in jail for benefitting without paying for that benefit...that becomes an imposition on free will, which is something I prefer to avoid.
2) The "bad" that copyright in theory seeks to prevent isn't really bad. Copying is not stealing because it doesn't take something away from somebody. If you have a bicycle and I take your bicycle, you now no longer have a bicycle. If you make a song, and I copy the song...you still have the song. I haven't taken anything away from you. And, in case anyone wants to go there...yes, if I could push a button and "copy" your bike via a star-trek replicator or something, that wouldn't be "stealing" either.
3) I am not comfortable with the idea that the person who brings something into the world is entitled to prevent others from having it. It seems reasonable to me to suggest that they're not obligated to provide it to others...but to me, suggesting that they're entitled to stop others from having it just because they brought it into the world...that's just not how I would want to run a society.
For example, imagine the first human to discover fire. What if the social convention at the time had been that, since he discovered it...nobody else could have it without his permission. And if anyone watched what he did and "copied" the method, third parties would came and take it away and hurt them unless they gave the number of rocks or seashells that the guy who discovered it wants in exchange for his permission to have fire.
When I describe it that way it's obvious how ridiculous that is, right? But that's what copyright is. If you make a song, or a game or whatever...somehow this entitles you to stop others from reproducing it, and if they do...even though they haven't taken it from you...you're now allowed to have somebody else steal money from them and/or throw them in jail for you.
Why does anyone think a society that works that way makes sense?
When you people imply things like that it's more important for you to have games like Skyrim than it is to live in a world where people don't kick down your door and throw you in jail if you don't give people money...I...all I can say is that your worldview and mine are not entirely compatible.
Post by: WealthyRadish on June 30, 2013, 01:01:21 pm
Maybe I should specify - if you give over your specialized skills etc. for free when people will willingly pay for it you are a chump.
Mmm, still not following the chump argument. Many people make games as a hobby, or contribute to open source projects without pay. Modders can put tremendous effort into creating something within a game, and never see payment or recognition for it. Many doctors decide that a life prescribing drugs to fat westerners isn't worth their time, and do humanitarian work elsewhere in the world for little to no pay. People sacrifice for what's important to them, and I'd hope that money isn't what's important to most people.
Post by: Vector on June 30, 2013, 01:05:28 pm
Quote
When you people imply things like that it's more important for you to have games like Skyrim than it is to live in a world where people don't kick down your door and throw you in jail if you don't give people money...I...all I can say is that your worldview and mine are not entirely compatible.
I don't think piracy should be controlled by law. I do think we should understand that it can be a large component of being a huge fucking jerk and react to those who undercut creators accordingly. We should also understand that giving each other money for services rendered is what allows us job specializations and, therefore, civilization. Being a moocher is a breach of the social contract.
There's like, the legal code attached to the court system, and then the social contract. I think that piracy should, under the condition of a person grabbing stuff because "lulz I totally can," be a red mark in the social contract. People should treat those who undercut creators for amusement (rather than lack of funds and lack of any way to get any) with extreme disdain, the same way you treat your loaded friend who keeps on "forgetting" her wallet when it comes time to pay for anything.
Mmm, still not following the chump argument. Many people make games as a hobby, or contribute to open source projects without pay. Modders can put tremendous effort into creating something within a game, and never see payment or recognition for it. Many doctors decide that a life prescribing drugs to fat westerners isn't worth their time, and do humanitarian work elsewhere in the world for little to no pay. People sacrifice for what's important to them, and I'd hope that money isn't what's important to most people.
There is a difference between "can pay but won't pay" and "can't pay so won't pay, but would like to pay." People who do volunteer work are usually paid in the desire to pay, i.e. gratitude.
Post by: WealthyRadish on June 30, 2013, 01:11:15 pm
can pay or won't but may pay if pay can pay and pay or pay
I'm still a bit hungover, I'm going to drop it and take your word for it. :P
I think I get what monkey meant now.
Post by: Bauglir on June 30, 2013, 01:15:05 pm
You cut the sentence in half. Also it was an argument more directed at the use of Toady as a particular example than anything else, and you weren't the one using him as an example, so that's why it doesn't really answer anything you said.
Moreover, Toady gets paid from the work he does, in the form of donations
Nothing about voluntary donations contradicts anything I'm promoting. I'm arguing againat copyright.
Quote
In what way would Frumple's alternatives allow a DF-like project to be constructed? I'm not necessarily saying copyright is necessarily the only way to create them, but it is demonstrably a system that allows them. The copyright-free alternatives Frumple mentioned do not allow such things. It's also true that all alternatives I've seen also do not allow them, but perhaps that is the fault of my experience and not of reality.QuoteThose structures create different kinds of art than a single person working on their own vision, and they aren't prohibited by the existence of copyright or other IP law, so I'm not really sure how they're relevant.What's so special about other forms that you believe they necessarily couldn't be constructed without copyright?
Quote
1) Copyright is undesireable because copyright enforcement involves coersion and force. Saying that it's "nice" for people who provide things for us to benefit from doing so is is all well and good, but when you start fining people and throwing them in jail for benefitting without paying for that benefit...that becomes an imposition on free will, which is something I prefer to avoid.Okay, that's fair enough. Punishments are always a negative when viewed on their own, so yes, in theory it would be better no to have to deal with them. I believe that there are many, many cases where punishing people for misdeeds is still correct.
Quote
2) The "bad" that copyright in theory seeks to enforce isn't really bad. Copying is not stealing because it doesn't take something away from somebody. If you have a bicycle and I take your bicycle, you now no longer have a bicycle. If you make a song, and I copy the song...you still have the song. I haven't taken anything away from you. And, in case anyone wants to go there...yes, if I could push a button and "copy" your bike via a star-trek replicator or something, that wouldn't be "stealing" either.I disagree on what the aim of copyright is, then. It's not about who no longer has a thing, it's about allowing people to earn a livelihood doing art, instead of being forced to do art on the side of some other job. Were our economy such that people could freely go without working, then I agree that copyright would be totally unnecessary and could safely be dispensed with. This also answers the next point you make, I feel, because preventing others from having a thing is the only practical method of enforcing a right to compensation, at least that I can think of.
Post by: LordBucket on June 30, 2013, 01:18:38 pm
I don't think piracy should be controlled by law.
social contract
Ok. If you want to remove the legal consequences, but simply have a cultural environment where people generally choose to reward those who contribute to their lives...I think I'm ok with that.
Quote
Being a moocher is a breach of the social contract.
Only in conditions of scarcity. I don't begrudge my neighbor how much air they breathe, nor do I begrudge them the carbon dioxide I exhale that their flowers use.
Creating scarcity is not something I see as a desirable goal, even if doing so enables some people to benefit from the trade that might result from it.
Post by: Leafsnail on June 30, 2013, 01:22:26 pm
If that's not on the table then at the very least the copyright period should be reduced dramatically. Enforcing copyright for decades doesn't encourage people to create things, it just allows a few specific publishers to continue cashing in on old works. I don't think anyone has ever thought "Well I would write this book, but the idea that people will be able to enjoy my book for free 50 years after my death appalls me".
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2013, 01:28:40 pm
In what way would Frumple's alternatives allow a DF-like project to be constructed?Have... have you already forgotten Goblin Camp? S'mostly dead at this point, from what I recall, but there's nothing inherent to... any software, really... that somehow magically makes it impossible to be created via group effort, or somehow renders it incapable of being passed from developer to developer. There's nothing about DF that copyright made possible. That's all on Toady's dedication, insofar as I'm aware, and while copyright may or may not make that more likely, it's pretty far from necessary for it.
There's more than one decade+ literary project roaming around the net, collaborative efforts that have survived a great number of folks passing in and out of it. There's gaming projects like that as well (Dungeon Crawl, Angband, as examples).
Post by: kaijyuu on June 30, 2013, 01:36:30 pm
There are copyright-free methods for people to make money off art, but they're all commission based or crowd funded or supported by donations, and those have a hell of a lot of problems of their own, since all of them require paying the artist BEFORE they finish their work*. I have enough trouble determining whether a game is worth my money already, when it exists and has reviews. Determining whether it's worth the cash before it's even made requires clairvoyance, else I'll get suckered in by people who make good pitches but bad games.
*Look at Toady's donation model. It requires him to NEVER finish dwarf fortress. Ever. It will not be done, because as soon as he finishes it, he loses his source of income.
Post by: Vector on June 30, 2013, 01:37:48 pm
There's more than one decade+ literary project roaming around the net, collaborative efforts that have survived a great number of folks passing in and out of it. There's gaming projects like that as well (Dungeon Crawl, Angband, as examples).
And the greatest novel ever written was 3/5 written by one dude, then the other 2/5 finished by some collaborators after his death.
Only in conditions of scarcity. I don't begrudge my neighbor how much air they breathe, nor do I begrudge them the carbon dioxide I exhale that their flowers use.
Creating scarcity is not something I see as a desirable goal, even if doing so enables some people to benefit from the trade that might result from it.
What I mean is that if you have resources and are benefiting greatly (knowingly, too) from the work of someone who is really suffering from lack of resources, and you don't hand them some of those resources, you are a shithead.
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 30, 2013, 01:39:35 pm
I have A, and you have B. If you want some of A, give me some of B. I dont get why people think they dont have to part with any of thier B to get my A.
Post by: LordBucket on June 30, 2013, 01:49:31 pm
What I mean is that if you have resources and are benefiting greatly (knowingly, too) from the work of someone who is really suffering from lack of resources, and you don't hand them some of those resources, you are a shithead.
I wouldn't be comfortable making that assertion. I think removing the systems that create scarcity is a more likely solution than simply handing out resources to people who lack them.
I have A, and you have B. If you want some of A, give me some of B. I dont get why
people think they dont have to part with any of thier B to get my A.
Scenario 1:
Start condition (before exchange)
You: Have A
I: Have B
End condition (after exchange)
You: Have B
I: Have A
-- Nobody has a problem with that.
Scenario 2
Start condition (before exchange)
You: Have A
I: Have B
End condition (after exchange)
You: Have AB
I: Have B
-- This is what is in dispute. I approve of Scenario 2. Some people do not because it "robs" me of the opportunity to get A since you can get B without giving up A.
EDIT: fixed
I have A, and you have B. If you want some of A, give me some of B. I dont get why
people think they dont have to part with any of thier B to get my A.
That's exactly the point. You don't have to part with your games or music when I copy them.
Post by: Vector on June 30, 2013, 01:53:10 pm
Don't be silly, Bucket.
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 30, 2013, 01:53:28 pm
Don't be silly, Bucket.
You missed the "some" criteria. If I have something you want, how is it logical to assume you have a right to it without some form of trade? Espcially if my own time and money have been invested in making it - thats what the exchange is about - not the actual "thing" that has been created, but as an exchange for my time and effort - isnt this why professions charge by the hour for services?
Post by: Bauglir on June 30, 2013, 02:08:44 pm
Copyright made DF possible by allowing Toady to earn a living from the donations he earns by producing it, is the point I was making. I was less talking about "low-graphics civ-building and management games with huge amounts of detail and freedom" and more "huge, life-consuming project made by one or two people with a vision for it". Sorry that wasn't clear.In what way would Frumple's alternatives allow a DF-like project to be constructed?Have... have you already forgotten Goblin Camp? S'mostly dead at this point, from what I recall, but there's nothing inherent to... any software, really... that somehow magically makes it impossible to be created via group effort, or somehow renders it incapable of being passed from developer to developer. There's nothing about DF that copyright made possible. That's all on Toady's dedication, insofar as I'm aware, and while copyright may or may not make that more likely, it's pretty far from necessary for it.
There's more than one decade+ literary project roaming around the net, collaborative efforts that have survived a great number of folks passing in and out of it. There's gaming projects like that as well (Dungeon Crawl, Angband, as examples).
Post by: Leafsnail on June 30, 2013, 02:11:48 pm
Copyright made DF possible by allowing Toady to earn a living from the donations he earns by producing it, is the point I was making. I was less talking about "low-graphics civ-building and management games with huge amounts of detail and freedom" and more "huge, life-consuming project made by one or two people with a vision for it". Sorry that wasn't clear.Did it? I don't really see how copyright is essential to Toady's business model, even if he does use it.
Post by: kaijyuu on June 30, 2013, 02:12:41 pm
Post by: Darkmere on June 30, 2013, 02:17:22 pm
That's exactly the point. You don't have to part with your games or music when I copy them.
The effort to make games or music has already been invested; it is time spent on creation that could have been used on something else, like growing food or making cars. You talk like creation is a free, zero effort endeavor but it simply isn't. You mentioned stage work, so let's go with that. Say you work really hard and put on a completely awesome production of Our Town (or whatever, insert random something here), and someone in the audience on opening night records the whole thing, then gives out recordings to everyone else in town for free. Now, no one needs to go see the show, so you no longer get paid. You still have the original performance, no one can take that away from you, but all the future ticket and concession money are now lost, as are your time expenses spent making sets and doing rehearsals.
Alternatively, another troupe comes in and uses all your sets and equipment to perform the same show and profits off all the work you did, while you get zero royalties. This is desirable, then?
Post by: Bauglir on June 30, 2013, 02:20:37 pm
Post by: Bdthemag on June 30, 2013, 02:57:31 pm
Post by: LordBucket on June 30, 2013, 03:40:30 pm
another troupe comes in and uses all your sets and equipment to perform the same
show and profits off all the work you did, while you get zero royalties.
There's some ambiguity in how you're phrasing this.
If you're saying that we do a show at a third party theatre, we build sets and do the show, then the next troupe to come through uses the sets we left behind without reimbursing us? Yes, that would be completely proper. For that matter...let's make it even "worse" and say that the second troupe to come in only even chose to do to same show for the specific reason that there were pre-constructed sets already available for it made by us. That would still be ok.
On the other hand, if two troupes are sharing the same theatre concurrently, say...troupe A performs on Thursdays and Saturdays, and troupe B on Fridays and Sundays. Troupe A builds the set, and Troupe B uses them too. There's the potential for trouble there because Troupe B might accidentally damage the sets during their performance nights, causing us to be unable to use them on ours. That wouldn't fly. But the metaphor there is not a copyright issue, it's a property destruction issue.
On the other hand, if they see our set design, and copy it...again, I don't see a problem with that. It would be highly unusual for two different troupes to both be performing the same show concurrently in the first place, and I imagine that would ruffle some feathers, but ultimately that would be up to the the theatre owner, not the performer's companies. If a theatre books two different troupes for the same show at the same theatre...there's likely to be friction over that regardless of set procurement arrangements.
You could probably come up with a better example. This doesn't work well because you're talking about physical objects. But if they use our sets that we built and left behind without reimbursing us...yeah, nobody would have a problem with that. But if they're using finite, limited resources like sets and equipment, that we're still using, and thereby incurring a risk of loss by accidental damage...yeah, that's a problem, but it's a problem that isn't really representative of the point I think you're probably trying to make.
Would you care to clarify?
Post by: Zyxl on June 30, 2013, 05:28:10 pm
A study suggests that games having a demo makes them lose out on about 50% of sales otherwise
(Schell Games CEO's D.I.C.E. presentation or just google, trailer+nodemo sells twice as well as trailer+demo).
However, I pirate games because they have no demo.
(I'm not shelling out $50+ USD when I'm not even sure how well it will run, or the state of bugs, issues with a piece of my hardware in particular, currently unresolved driver issues, etc).
Post by: FearfulJesuit on June 30, 2013, 06:34:30 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 30, 2013, 06:46:51 pm
Nowadays the only thing that has changed is that there is nothing worth watching in cinemas anymore, and that whenever I try to give my money to the publishers of shows I like I often find myself having to jump through several hurdles and still wait years for an official release.
How publishing companies distribute their media in the digital world is mind-boggingly painful that it's just easier to forgo them altogether and watch independently created media made by random people on the internet. There are seriously too few shows that are even worth the effort of pirating, and the only show I've ever pirated I own the box set for [well, one third of it anyways because I have to wait years for the rest to be released] and the only other media I've pirated were games that are non-extant. And if anything's true, it's that copyright already crossed the line of insanity - when you are dead, you do not need decades more 'compensation.'
Post by: Darkmere on June 30, 2013, 06:58:27 pm
Would you care to clarify?
I meant that someone profits from or costs you profits from time and energy you invested in the creative process, which was the main point of the entire rest of my post that you ignored. Copyright (which isn't always gracefully enforced) protects a creator's return on their initial time investment of creating an intellectual commodity. Some people make stuff for free, which is great. Others make stuff for profit, and if consumers are willing to pay, that should be feasible as well.
Post by: Sergarr on June 30, 2013, 07:55:36 pm
Not to interrupt the current discussion, but something funny:Does that mean that current games are 50% shit?
A study suggests that games having a demo makes them lose out on about 50% of sales otherwise
Post by: Bdthemag on June 30, 2013, 07:58:16 pm
I think that you're being too generous with just 50%.Not to interrupt the current discussion, but something funny:Does that mean that current games are 50% shit?
A study suggests that games having a demo makes them lose out on about 50% of sales otherwise
Post by: Leafsnail on June 30, 2013, 08:05:00 pm
Post by: Zangi on June 30, 2013, 08:52:09 pm
Not to interrupt the current discussion, but something funny:Need citations of that 'study'.
A study suggests that games having a demo makes them lose out on about 50% of sales otherwise
(Schell Games CEO's D.I.C.E. presentation or just google, trailer+nodemo sells twice as well as trailer+demo).
Marketing and pricing are not created equal and/or the demo of the game presents it as a piece of shite.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 30, 2013, 09:00:42 pm
The problem with most games are the publishers who know only marketing and nothing to do with gaming. They see a certain narrow aspect of one game that sells well, and they throw it onto the press and print it to infinity with a different name each time.
Post by: alexandertnt on June 30, 2013, 10:17:55 pm
1) Copyright is undesireable because copyright enforcement involves coersion and force. Saying that it's "nice" for people who provide things for us to benefit from doing so is is all well and good, but when you start fining people and throwing them in jail for benefitting without paying for that benefit...that becomes an imposition on free will, which is something I prefer to avoid.
Most people do not break these laws, so it is generally not an issue. At the end of the day, copyright gets enforced like any other law, so it seems odd to pick specifically on copyright laws for being enforced like laws. Free will (like all of these "freedoms") is reasonably limited by law.
I agree that the punishment for copyrights can be overkill. I see personal infringement as stealing an apple. Illegal, but not worth much more than a slap-on-the-wrist (except in extreme circumstances, like mass-commercial copyright infringement).
Quote
2) The "bad" that copyright in theory seeks to prevent isn't really bad. Copying is not stealing because it doesn't take something away from somebody. If you have a bicycle and I take your bicycle, you now no longer have a bicycle. If you make a song, and I copy the song...you still have the song. I haven't taken anything away from you. And, in case anyone wants to go there...yes, if I could push a button and "copy" your bike via a star-trek replicator or something, that wouldn't be "stealing" either.
Bycicles take labour and materials to produce. If you could duplicate them than these necessities would no longer exist and bycicles would no longer take labour or materials for people to aquire. However, games, movies, music etc take labour and materials despite their ability to be duplicated.
So someone washes your car, and you drive away without paying them. You have taken their time and labour away from them, exactly what happens when you pirate software, moveis etc.
Quote
3) I am not comfortable with the idea that the person who brings something into the world is entitled to prevent others from having it. It seems reasonable to me to suggest that they're not obligated to provide it to others...but to me, suggesting that they're entitled to stop others from having it just because they brought it into the world...that's just not how I would want to run a society.
As a software developer (and I literally am), I am not comfortable with the idea that people can lay-claim to what is rightfully mine. It is the fruits of my labour (producing software is damn hard work. I would expect that people use my software in a way that I feel is appropriate because its mine. If I put in the work, why should I not own it?
Quote
For example, imagine the first human to discover fire. What if the social convention at the time had been that, since he discovered it...nobody else could have it without his permission. And if anyone watched what he did and "copied" the method, third parties would came and take it away and hurt them unless they gave the number of rocks or seashells that the guy who discovered it wants in exchange for his permission to have fire.
You are legally allowed to backwards engineer a process by law for this reason. Ontop of that, you cannot own trivial processes, so banging two rocks together would not be copyrightable. So this is just not a valid comparison.
Quote
If you make a song, or a game or whatever...somehow this entitles you to stop others from reproducing it, and if they do...even though they haven't taken it from you...you're now allowed to have somebody else steal money from them and/or throw them in jail for you.
They have taken my time and effort away from me. Producing this stuff is hard work. Ontop of that, there are circumstances where reproducing work is legal and reasonable. Backups etc.
Quote
When you people imply things like that it's more important for you to have games like Skyrim than it is to live in a world where people don't kick down your door and throw you in jail if you don't give people money...I...all I can say is that your worldview and mine are not entirely compatible.
I dont think many people here want people to be thrown in jail in this circumstance. This is just a strawman.
Post by: Vattic on June 30, 2013, 10:50:58 pm
Most people do not break these laws, so it is generally not an issue.Really? Most people I know own at least one pirated film or album including those without computers. One of the main indirect sources of piracy during my youth was people making mixtapes for their crushes. On top of that you have people unknowingly listening to pirated music on YouTube which was a big problem, if less so now.
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2013, 10:51:54 pm
Most people do not break these laws, so it is generally not an issue. At the end of the day, copyright gets enforced like any other law, so it seems odd to pick specifically on copyright laws for being enforced like laws.Copyright law gets enforced incredibly selectively, and an absolutely ridiculous portion of -- at the very least -- the States population has broken copyright at some point or another, if not necessarily via online/computer stuff. I'd wager at this point that a literal majority of the world's population has (because remember, copyright violations extend hella' far beyond the computer.). So... those two statements are kinda' wrong, just on those aspects (there's more besides).
Post by: Bauglir on June 30, 2013, 11:19:39 pm
More than that, if we grant that the comparison is valid (which I'm not necessarily doing), I'd still expect Grod (a name I'm choosing for no particular reason) here to be compensated for the time and effort put into inventing a method for producing fire, instead of hunting and gathering. Otherwise, Grod is effectively being punished compared to his or her fellows. Also, this is patent law, not copyright, but I'll admit that in spirit it's fairly similar.QuoteFor example, imagine the first human to discover fire. What if the social convention at the time had been that, since he discovered it...nobody else could have it without his permission. And if anyone watched what he did and "copied" the method, third parties would came and take it away and hurt them unless they gave the number of rocks or seashells that the guy who discovered it wants in exchange for his permission to have fire.
You are legally allowed to backwards engineer a process by law for this reason. Ontop of that, you cannot own trivial processes, so banging two rocks together would not be copyrightable. So this is just not a valid comparison.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 30, 2013, 11:21:04 pm
I dont think many people here want people to be thrown in jail in this circumstance. This is just a strawman.I don't think you know what the copyright laws are.
Post by: Neonivek on June 30, 2013, 11:24:01 pm
If your game is terrible and because people pirated it and told other people that it was terrible (because it was) then you deserved to have lousy sales even if without piracy you would have actually made a profit because of your excellent marketing skills.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 12:16:04 am
More than that, if we grant that the comparison is valid (which I'm not necessarily doing), I'd still expect Grod (a name I'm choosing for no particular reason) here to be compensated for the time and effort put into inventing a method for producing fire, instead of hunting and gathering. Otherwise, Grod is effectively being punished compared to his or her fellows. Also, this is patent law, not copyright, but I'll admit that in spirit it's fairly similar.Replace the method with the idea of fire making, the analogy stands.
Grod wants compensation, and if compensation is what Grod needs to be motivated to create these fire making ideas then Grod should have this compensation.
Let's say Grod makes his fire. Sod wants to light a branch with Grod's fire. Sod is not taking Grod's fire away, but is making a new one that would not have existed without Grod's original fire. Grod demands payment of corn for allowing Sod to make this copy.
This goes on for a decade, with Grod living off this corn. Pod is looking on making a new idea, and fire is needed to help make it come to fruition. Pod doesn't go to Grod, but goes to Sod and makes a new fire from his one. Grod is angry, and says to Sod that a decade is not enough time, Sod needs to give Grod corn for compensation, otherwise Grod is effectively being punished. So he punishes Sod and Pod by sending them to prison and giving them a corn debt larger than what they'll make in a lifetime.
30 years later Grod has grown fat on his pile of corn. He's made a throne out of the cobs. He hears that someone in the neighbouring village has been showing other people how to make fire. So he sends his hired Chieftains to bring him to his prison. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-loses-us-extradition) Grod also hears of someone who is giving away charcoal so that many people have the ability to make fire. The audacity! So he sends his Chieftains again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMas0tWc0sg) Grod, now very rich on corn has started hiring other people to make sure he receives his corn as well. He hears there are people using his fire idea to cauterize wounds. Don't the fools know by not giving him corn they're stifling creativity? (http://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/rushpatent.cfm) They must be selfish.
Grod hears that people are using his fire. They put it in furnaces and begin smelting. But where is Grod's corn? (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/01562219670/not-so-hip-2-da-game-90s-rapper-sues-upstart-mac-miller-doing-what-rappers-do.shtml) Grod hears that people are sending things through a series of inter connected tubes. Grod thinks someone said something about fire there. Shut it down. (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100919/02284211072/back-when-the-senate-tried-to-ban-dial-telephones.shtml) Some people say they were doing nothing that involved fire at all, but Grod gags them anyways.
10 years later Grod has created a fire empire. Everything that the sun falls upon, everything that combusts is his. His compensation. People go about cooking, careful to make sure they never so much as get a single molecule of oxygen in their heat or heat in their fuel or else they are punishing Grod and are going to have to pay corn or pay the price.
Grod dies eventually, but the people are still fucked because Grod still needs compensation 60 years after he's died.
The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator.
The usage of copyright is to exploit the created.
The price of copyright is the stifling of creativity.
But the intention of copyright is to encourage creators to create.
Post by: Bauglir on July 01, 2013, 12:48:21 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 12:59:52 am
Never did say I agree with every conceivable implementation of copyrights.My arguments do not hinge on your identity.
Although if we want to be specific about what you said, why would giving to the collective be punishment? It is interesting to me, I want to know whether or not my taxes are punishing.
Post by: Bauglir on July 01, 2013, 01:12:02 am
I don't actually know what you mean here. What I meant was that you posted an elaborate strawman. As much as that term's overused, you've taken a statement that "I think some type of copyright system needs to exist in the current economic system" to mean "I support every possible abuse of the idea of copyright".Never did say I agree with every conceivable implementation of copyrights.My arguments do not hinge on your identity.
Quote
Although if we want to be specific about what you said, why would giving to the collective be punishment? It is interesting to me, I want to know whether or not my taxes are punishing.If you invent fire instead of gathering food, and then share that fire, and nobody shares food with you in return, you are worse-off than everyone else because you did something for their benefit. If you pay taxes, you benefit from the things those taxes pay for, including a society that supports your way of life (notably, you benefit more from a society that accepts your money the more money you have, so there's an argument for progressive tax rates if you want one). These are different situations.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 01:36:35 am
There should be no confusion. There is no strawman here, there is no misrepresentation of the opposing position. The only confusion here is in that you think the declaration of your opinion or identity is important. Unless you are copyright laws incarnate, it isn't. Stop defending yourself when no one is attacking you.I don't actually know what you mean here. What I meant was that you posted an elaborate strawman. As much as that term's overused, you've taken a statement that "I think some type of copyright system needs to exist in the current economic system" to mean "I support every possible abuse of the idea of copyright".Never did say I agree with every conceivable implementation of copyrights.My arguments do not hinge on your identity.
So this person lives in a society where everyone is out for themselves, yet has shared the fire nonetheless for the betterment of society. Ignoring the anomaly that is selfless people...QuoteAlthough if we want to be specific about what you said, why would giving to the collective be punishment? It is interesting to me, I want to know whether or not my taxes are punishing.If you invent fire instead of gathering food, and then share that fire, and nobody shares food with you in return, you are worse-off than everyone else because you did something for their benefit.
You are not defending the right to distribute your fire. You are defending the right to ensure no one else learns how to make their own fires.
And then what of the people who are capable of gathering and discovering fire? Well, the latter is ruled out certainly. Hell, if you applied the state of modern copyright law to this analogy you wouldn't even be able to use fire if some selfish arsehat discovered how to make it first. Which sadly, is the case in the medical 'industry.'
Post by: alexandertnt on July 01, 2013, 01:42:25 am
Most people do not break these laws, so it is generally not an issue. At the end of the day, copyright gets enforced like any other law, so it seems odd to pick specifically on copyright laws for being enforced like laws.Copyright law gets enforced incredibly selectively, and an absolutely ridiculous portion of -- at the very least -- the States population has broken copyright at some point or another, if not necessarily via online/computer stuff. I'd wager at this point that a literal majority of the world's population has (because remember, copyright violations extend hella' far beyond the computer.). So... those two statements are kinda' wrong, just on those aspects (there's more besides).
Yeah, perhaps I was somewhat wrong about the whole "Most people dont break copyright". I was more referring to significantly breaking copyright (ie more than accidently watching a copyrighted video or downloading a song) but should have clarified this.
I did not say "Copyright gets enforced like any other law" to imply that there is nothing wrong with the way it is enforced, but rather to point out that "copyright enforcement involves coersion and force" can apply to any law, and I dont see how this point on its own is an argument against a specific law. Again, I did not speak clearly here and apologise for this.
I agree that Copyright gets enforced selectively, and in general the enforcement of it is pretty crappy at the moment. Copyright enforcement involves too much coersion and force, yes. But I see this as a reason to fix copyright laws, not to eliminate it.
More than that, if we grant that the comparison is valid (which I'm not necessarily doing), I'd still expect Grod (a name I'm choosing for no particular reason) here to be compensated for the time and effort put into inventing a method for producing fire, instead of hunting and gathering. Otherwise, Grod is effectively being punished compared to his or her fellows. Also, this is patent law, not copyright, but I'll admit that in spirit it's fairly similar.QuoteFor example, imagine the first human to discover fire. What if the social convention at the time had been that, since he discovered it...nobody else could have it without his permission. And if anyone watched what he did and "copied" the method, third parties would came and take it away and hurt them unless they gave the number of rocks or seashells that the guy who discovered it wants in exchange for his permission to have fire.
You are legally allowed to backwards engineer a process by law for this reason. Ontop of that, you cannot own trivial processes, so banging two rocks together would not be copyrightable. So this is just not a valid comparison.
Your right, it would be patent law. So the whole "inventing fire" thing doesnt really have anything to do directly with copyright. I should have pointed this out, but mistakenly mushed the two together in my mind ::). If the process of inventing fire is quite a complex one in that particular circumstance, then I see nothing wrong with Grod being compensated for his work if others want to use his process. But, he does not own fire itself, and others can re-invent the process (or invent new ones) and use fire too without having their legs broken.
I dont think many people here want people to be thrown in jail in this circumstance. This is just a strawman.I don't think you know what the copyright laws are.
Now I could understand "You misinterpreted LordBucket's statement". Maby I did (and if I did I would want someone to point out why so I can better understand the argument). But how does that statement suggest that I dont know what copyright laws are? That statement itself wasnt even related to copyright law. It was to show that the statement "that it's more important for you to have games like Skyrim than it is to live in a world where people don't kick down your door and throw you in jail if you don't give people money" is something I dont think many people were implying. And to suggest that a world where it is possible that games like skyrim exist and not having overly-enforced laws are not at odds with each other.
Post by: Zyxl on July 01, 2013, 01:51:41 am
Do you have a link to the methodology for that data?
Need citations of that 'study'.
It's almost like I didn't cite where I read it in the post you're replying to. If you can be arsed to google, you'll find the cited presentation cited their graph from EEDAR, which is a research and consultant company that was tracking sales of, get this: Xbox games. Console. Now we can assume consoles are relatively secure from most piracy compared to PC, at least effectively immune. Immune enough for the whole "devs flocking to console because we don't want our games pirated" anyway.
So taking this as the best example of sales, with piracy not affecting or skewing results, we can argue for something hilarious given how insane a near ~50% drop in sales correlated with having a demo is:
Something as simple as having a demo is more damaging to sales than piracy.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 01:56:50 am
But how does that statement suggest that I dont know what copyright laws are?I dont think many people here want people to be thrown in jail in this circumstance. This is just a strawman.I don't think you know what the copyright laws are.
Spoiler: American copyright law (click to show/hide)
British copyright law the infringer can face an unlimited fine and 10 years in prison.
'To protect creativity.'
And talk to a music publisher and look like you have money.
There are a bad number of people like that.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 01, 2013, 02:57:04 am
But how does that statement suggest that I dont know what copyright laws are?I dont think many people here want people to be thrown in jail in this circumstance. This is just a strawman.I don't think you know what the copyright laws are.Spoiler: American copyright law (click to show/hide)
British copyright law the infringer can face an unlimited fine and 10 years in prison.
'To protect creativity.'
And talk to a music publisher and look like you have money.
There are a bad number of people like that.
Erm, yes, that is copyright law. And yes, it is overkill. I still dont understand what this has to do with my statement (which was directly related to LordBucket's comment suggesting that people who want copyright also want it heavily enforced). I think I should point out (though I already have) that I am not defending the current copyright laws, only putting arguments against the removal of copyright alltogether.
ie I want copyright and Skyrim, and dont want many of those laws you have just quoted, and wanting one does not require the other.
Post by: Jimmy on July 01, 2013, 04:12:47 am
The copyright industry is to blame for failing to keep pace with the modern consumer. People don't have to go out to a music store to buy their music, they don't have to go to a video store to buy a movie, and they don't have to go to a game store to buy a video game. Some still prefer this option, but for others, they'd rather access it instantly from home via the internet.
The advantage piracy has versus the traditional distribution model is a matter of convenience moreso than price. If price was the only factor in the equation, services such as iTunes, Netflix and Steam would have failed long ago for failing to match the pirate rate of free. Instead we see a clever subset of retailers that understand the shift in consumer behavior and have tapped into the market.
I suggest people give thought to what happens when 3D printing becomes mainstream. For instance, who will pay retail cost for a Lego set when you can download and print your own pieces instead? Will it then become illegal to print Lego? Will you be sent to jail for copying the design of another company, even if it's for personal use?
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2013, 04:32:14 am
Quote
I still dont understand what this has to do with my statement
Sometimes what I and others like to do is add on additional information when we quote someone.
I will admit it is very awkward when the person thinks I am trying to argue or contradict them.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 01, 2013, 05:31:44 am
I suggest people give thought to what happens when 3D printing becomes mainstream. For instance, who will pay retail cost for a Lego set when you can download and print your own pieces instead? Will it then become illegal to print Lego? Will you be sent to jail for copying the design of another company, even if it's for personal use?
You can purchase lego-knockoffs, so I would assume it would be legal to print lego (I could be very wrong so I dont take responsibility if you get sent to jail :P).
But yeah, 3D printing certainly shakes things up a bit. I would like to think that personal use 3D printing would be mostly unobstructed (but I somehow dont think this will happen). If I were to guess, I would think the resulting laws would be similar to what happens with the 2D reproduction of images (I am not necessarily saying this is good or bad).
Hmm, it could move the production of simple 3D objects (like toys etc) out of factories and into the homes. Maby in the future you will be aquiring (through purchase, or some sort of free-software equivilent for models) digital copies of 3D things instead of going to the shop, much like the change from purchasing cartriges to digital distribution. Personally (as a hobbyist 3D-modeller) I mainly hope the 3D printers themselves are not restricted, as printing off my own 3D models would be awesome.
Quote
The advantage piracy has versus the traditional distribution model is a matter of convenience moreso than price. If price was the only factor in the equation, services such as iTunes, Netflix and Steam would have failed long ago for failing to match the pirate rate of free. Instead we see a clever subset of retailers that understand the shift in consumer behavior and have tapped into the market.
I agree. It seems more people pirate things because it is easier (not because they are cheap bastards), and the current industry has been very slow at providing a legal alternative. I do not like it when people who pirate anything are strawmanned into monsters.
QuoteI still dont understand what this has to do with my statement
Sometimes what I and others like to do is add on additional information when we quote someone.
I will admit it is very awkward when the person thinks I am trying to argue or contradict them.
Well yeah, but his/her original statement was "I don't think you know what the copyright laws are.", yet (s)he has not demonstrated at all how I have misrepresented or shown a misunderstanding of copyright laws. That is not additional information about anything in particular and I still can't work out what my statement had to do with copyright laws, which I simply did not comment on.
I am also baffled by the response, which is just a list of potential outcomes of copyright infringement (which I dont believe I ever contradicted, and I certainly do not condone).
I am all ears if you have found a problem with my arguments, I want to correct or take back any faulty arguments I have made. But to do that I first need that faulty argument to be identified. A statement like "You dont understand copyright law" is not a particularly informative response to a quote that has nothing to do with copyright law. Hell, its not even particularly useful on its own as a response to a hypothetical post that is related to copyright law. What do I not understand about copyright law?
The fact that I feel like this makes me cautious that I have missed something, and if I have I apologise. I dont intend to convery any malice. But I cannot see what I have missed...
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2013, 05:46:54 am
Quote
Well yeah, but his/her original statement was "I don't think you know what the copyright laws are.",
Yeah but reading it over I still have no idea what they mean. It only makes sense the way I presented it.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 05:54:12 am
You can purchase lego-knockoffs, so I would assume it would be legal to print lego (I could be very wrong so I dont take responsibility if you get sent to jail :P).Well there was actually a legal case between Lego and Megablocks surrounding logos one time. Apparently it was ruled that you can't copyright simple polygons, sanity was to be had.
But yeah, 3D printing certainly shakes things up a bit. I would like to think that personal use 3D printing would be mostly unobstructed (but I somehow dont think this will happen). If I were to guess, I would think the resulting laws would be similar to what happens with the 2D reproduction of images (I am not necessarily saying this is good or bad).GW tried suing a man for 3D printing in their 'style.' He pulled down his designs to avoid having to go to court.
Hmm, it could move the production of simple 3D objects (like toys etc) out of factories and into the homes.
I agree. It seems more people pirate things because it is easier (not because they are cheap bastards), and the current industry has been very slow at providing a legal alternative. I do not like it when people who pirate anything are strawmanned into monsters.You kidding me? Just look at how sexy they make piracy seem. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU)
Well yeah, but his/her original statement was "I don't think you know what the copyright laws are.", yet (s)he has not demonstrated at all how I have misrepresented or shown a misunderstanding of copyright laws."I dont think many people here want people to be thrown in jail in this circumstance. This is just a strawman."
Despite the proponents of the current copyright law advocating just that.
I am also baffled by the response, which is just a list of potential outcomes of copyright infringement (which I dont believe I ever contradicted, and I certainly do not condone).Are we even talking about the same thing here? Because I'd think copyright law is what we'd be talking about in the piracy thread.
"You dont understand copyright law" is not a particularly informative response to a quote that has nothing to do with copyright law. Hell, its not even particularly useful on its own as a response to a hypothetical post that is related to copyright law. What do I not understand about copyright law?"I don't think you know what the copyright laws are" was to get you thinking about the consequences of it, and who decided those consequences. Of them, prison is possible. There were people, who looked at piracy, and they drafted this law meaning to put people in prison for it. But of course, everything on the internet is an affront to your existence, continue bickering.
Post by: NobodyPro on July 01, 2013, 06:51:03 am
GW do a lot of crazy legal things. I think I remember them recently going to court with another tabletop games company claiming, amongst other things, that the other company wasn't allowed to have their trademark huge pauldrons or giant lizard people.But yeah, 3D printing certainly shakes things up a bit. I would like to think that personal use 3D printing would be mostly unobstructed (but I somehow dont think this will happen). If I were to guess, I would think the resulting laws would be similar to what happens with the 2D reproduction of images (I am not necessarily saying this is good or bad).GW tried suing a man for 3D printing in their 'style.' He pulled down his designs to avoid having to go to court.
Hmm, it could move the production of simple 3D objects (like toys etc) out of factories and into the homes.
I just tallied up all the things I actually 'paid off' since I got a credit card. Excuse me while I google pictures of kittens so I can forget. Software licenses are expensive
Post by: Leafsnail on July 01, 2013, 07:42:13 am
It's almost like I didn't cite where I read it in the post you're replying to. If you can be arsed to google, you'll find the cited presentation cited their graph from EEDAR, which is a research and consultant company that was tracking sales of, get this: Xbox games. Console. Now we can assume consoles are relatively secure from most piracy compared to PC, at least effectively immune. Immune enough for the whole "devs flocking to console because we don't want our games pirated" anyway.I found the source, and it doesn't say its methodology at all anywhere. That makes the data pretty invalid, because correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation in one direction. As I said before, there's a chance that the highest selling games (and these would sell high enough to dramatically skew the average) know that they do not need to produce a demo in order to get customers. Or that the entire average is skewed by a few extremely high selling games that happen to not have demos (this is like how a poor neighbourhood can suddenly look rich if one billionaire moves in).
So taking this as the best example of sales, with piracy not affecting or skewing results, we can argue for something hilarious given how insane a near ~50% drop in sales correlated with having a demo is:
Something as simple as having a demo is more damaging to sales than piracy.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 01, 2013, 07:53:35 am
Post by: alexandertnt on July 01, 2013, 10:01:19 am
Spoiler: Spoilered to avoid "bickering" (click to show/hide)
. Its not at all conceivable that you have communicated your point unclearly and instead its all just your mere digital existance offending me. Actually, everything on the internet offends me for some reason.Incidentally, who actually coined the term "piracy" in a digital context? I'd have thought if you wanted to make them look bad you wouldn't pick the most glorified and romanticized crime out there.
Apparently (according to wikipedia) the term was coined centuries ago when piracy was probably not particularly romantacized when referring to copyright infringement. I would assume that lawyers/whoever diddnt see the difference when digital copyright came along. Little did they know how awesome they would make it sound.
Post by: Bauglir on July 01, 2013, 11:50:19 am
There should be no confusion. There is no strawman here, there is no misrepresentation of the opposing position. The only confusion here is in that you think the declaration of your opinion or identity is important. Unless you are copyright laws incarnate, it isn't. Stop defending yourself when no one is attacking you.Why did you quote my post and use the scenario I was discussing as the basis for a caricature, if what you are trying to say had nothing to do with what I said? And if it did have something to do with what I said, why should I not respond?
Spoiler: This Discussion Is Stupid (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 12:56:38 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
2. Responding is one thing, being defensive is another. You are needlessly pouring paragraphs into ensuring you are not blamed for accusations not made.
Somewhat similar to Alexander's case. I quote one thing, make a rhetorical statement, queue endless paragraphs of 'but I know so much about copyright law how could you say such a thing.' Yes, thank you for your wonderful contribution. You say "Did I ever demonstrate a lack of understanding of copyright laws" I quote "I dont think many people here want people to be thrown in jail in this circumstance. This is just a strawman" and you make more paragraphs that don't matter at all, asking the same question in ever increasing length. Because you have this fetishistic obsession with making sure that your opinion is known above the discussion at hand.
Do you find it hard to believe that there are people who will take advantage of a person who does nice things?I was actually being cynical. The heavy-capitalists of this world use everything to exploit the system. Copyright is used to exploit the system that it is supposed to be working against, for a limited time. I don't see how you think Copyright would stop anyone out for money from simply taking Grod's fire and making it a different colour, or how it would 'definitely' secure Grod a source of income.
I think I stressed enough the emphasis on the knowledge to make fire being information. The absurd patenting is the same problem with copyright. One is directly harmful to research, the other to media. A problem for copyright is that is also used absurdly and violently to squeeze more money out of consumers, and I'm not even talking about stopping pirates to try boost sales, I mean targeting paying customers. Meanwhile it does nothing to stop anyone, publisher or individual from simply making their own.Yes, because ensuring nobody else makes fires without compensating you for your original invention is the only way to ensure you'll be compensated for your original invention whenever somebody makes a fire. This is actually where the difference between patent law and copyright law is important*, because "how to make fire" is a piece of knowledge that should be handled differently from "the likeness of Luke Skywalker", due to the vast differences in the good they provide to society and the ways in which they are created. Your issue with the medical industry, for instance, is one of patent law allowing people to own patents on things that are absurd, and has nothing to do with copyrights, whose biggest problem is that they're enforced in stupid ways and exist for bizarrely long periods of time.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Bauglir on July 01, 2013, 01:10:35 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 01:31:54 pm
I'm pouring paragraphs into explaining what I said. The short version: Copyright is, in principle, good, but the current implementation is bizarre and heavily abused. Do you disagree with this?Nope. Also the emphasis on commercialism and not culture is another face on the cube of issues.
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 01, 2013, 01:32:30 pm
So someone washes your car, and you drive away without paying them. You have taken their time and labour away from them, exactly what happens when you pirate software, moveis etc.The dudes on the highway make this exact insane argument. Here's the deal - if you really want to make sure I pay you for your effort, get me to agree with it beforehand! Hell, the whole kickstarter thing is essentially built on that idea, on making people pony up the money up front. If you do a bunch of work, and then I benefit without compensating you, it might be a dick move but it is NOT stealing.
Stealing, in this case, would be if I approached you with the offer, agreed to pay you, and then skipped out - in that case, I would clearly have been stealing your time, and even if I had no benefit whatsoever (drove through a mud puddle on my way out the driveway?) you would still be the worse for it.
But here's the problem - a lot of people are, a lot of creators and developers, are entitled fucking brats who think just because they put in the effort the world owes them something. It doesn't! And thank god the world doesn't work that way. No matter how much work you put into a piece of crap, no one is under any obligation to give you money for it unless they actually agreed to it first. Even if they end up benefiting from it!
I think the better point of view here is to round up all the entitled asshats who think simple effort is enough for them to be rewarded and give them a nice big reminder that that isn't the way the world works. No matter how many times that asshole on the highway squeegies my window, I'm not giving him a dime. And that is not, it really is not, stealing.
Especially since, in this situation, the people pirates are supposedly stealing from (the publishers) aren't even the people who went through the work of squeeging my window! No, you're asking me to pay the guy who pointed him at my car, and hope the squeegieman is compensated appropriately.
It's a joke to call something like that theft.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 01, 2013, 01:37:13 pm
Post by: LordBucket on July 01, 2013, 01:56:17 pm
a lot of creators and developers, are entitled fucking brats who think
just because they put in the effort the world owes them something.
I've been sitting back reading and trying to genuinely understand this issue, and while this might seem to come rather far from left field, I'm beginning to suspect this whole copyright thing is actually a religious/philosophical issue. The argument I see being made by the copyright/you owe me camp....if I understand it correctly...basically seems to be that non-tangibles are ownable. That something like an idea, or a conceptual arrangement, can be property just like physical objects can.
This is a religious/philosophical view.
If I have red, blue and green markers, I can hold those markers in my hand and claim to own them. So far as I can tell, everyone participating in this discussion is agreeable to that. But...what if I take those markers and put them in a row, red blue and green, and then claim "ownership" of, not the physical markers themselves...but the arrangement of "red, blue then green" as applied to markers.
To me, that seems kind of silly. But it appears to be the worldview we're arguing against.
Yes, I am simplifying to demonstrate the ludicrousness of it. But that's all I'm doing. Simplifying. That really does appear to be what they're saying. For example: "I invested my time and energy into arranging these musical notes and sounds in a certain order. I'm not claiming to own the notes, but I own the arrangement and you can't use it." "I invested my time and energy into arranging these words into a certain order. I'm not claiming to own the words, but I own the arrangement and you can't use it. Even if you use your own paper and your own ink, you can't use this arrangement of words because I did it first."
That is basically what's being claimed here, right?
Post by: Zangi on July 01, 2013, 02:00:12 pm
It or one of its variations is nearly always brought up when we talk about pirates these days.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht90i9YdlowOff topic, but since you posted this, I've been listening to it too damned much.
It's like an addictive earworm that I like.
Also @Grod's Fire (http://xkcd.com/1228/)
Post by: Bauglir on July 01, 2013, 02:01:54 pm
Post by: LordBucket on July 01, 2013, 02:03:18 pm
Eh, it's not about ownership. It's about enabling a person to create art for a living.
That's an evasion.
Post by: Bauglir on July 01, 2013, 02:05:33 pm
No, it's my reasoning. There are a lot of people who think it's about ownership. But not everybody who thinks copyright is a good thing reasons that way, and I'm frustrated by attempts to paint the entire concept that way.Eh, it's not about ownership. It's about enabling a person to create art for a living.
That's an evasion.
Post by: LordBucket on July 01, 2013, 02:10:01 pm
No, it's my reasoning.
It's insufficient.
Quote
a lot of people who think it's about ownership. But not everybody who thinks copyright is a good thing reasons that way
How can you "reason about it" in a way that makes sense and isn't obviously unreasonable without it being about ownership? If you don't own the thing you're claiming other people can't have without paying you for it...how does that make sense?
Post by: XXSockXX on July 01, 2013, 02:16:48 pm
Post by: Bauglir on July 01, 2013, 02:20:51 pm
It's a tangential result of my argument, not the argument itself, and characterizing it as you have is inaccurate. I don't particularly think that ownership is "right", or that there's a moral obligation to society to provide it - only that it's an inevitable consequence of a system that is. If a system were presented that did not involve ownership, but still allowed artists to survive without recourse to other employment, that would also be good, and possibly better, depending on its other characteristics.
Is that sufficient?
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 01, 2013, 02:31:33 pm
Obviously, it's been twisted and perverted but the entitled assholes who think their effort is actually worth something.
You dont have to buy a game/movie/music/whatever though.And I won't. But it doesn't change the fact that a great many people think I should have to, simply because they put so much work into.
Post by: LordBucket on July 01, 2013, 02:47:39 pm
Is that sufficient?
Bauglir...I apologize. I'm really, really trying here. Your thinking...if I understand it...is so foreign to me that I'm, having a difficult time coming up with a response.
Quote
I don't particularly think that ownership is "right", or that there's a moral obligation
to society to provide it - only that it's an inevitable consequence of a system that is.
Do you understand the consequences of the consequences you believe to be inevitable?
Do you understand that you already can make a living as an artist...without copyright...provided you're able to convince people to choose to pay you for your art?
And...do you understand that the enforcement of this system you want for the sake of being able to "make a living as an artist" involves third parties stealing money (fines) from and/or imprisoning people you're unable to convince to pay you for your art?
Do you really believe that's better? There are people being thrown in jail for years, for failing to choose to support the living of artists. You do understand that...right?
Quote
I don't particularly think that ownership is "right", or that there's a moral obligation to society to provide it
So you don't even think that ownership is right, and you don't believe there's any obligation for society to provide it. So it's more important for you to make a living as an artist than throwing people in jail for using things you believe weren't even owned by somebody else?
Post by: Darkmere on July 01, 2013, 03:17:25 pm
Do you understand that you already can make a living as an artist...without copyright...provided you're able to convince people to choose to pay you for your art?
Stop. Stop right there.
The theory behind copyright is to make sure people who want to get paid for their art get paid for their art instead of the next guy who came along, saw something that someone else came up with, and just started selling the exact same thing with zero vested effort. Bicker and banter about enforcement all you like, but that's what copyright is meant to accomplish.
Payment for services rendered is not a foreign, bizarre, mind-blowing new-agey concept... it's the basis of civilization. Creation is a service.
Post by: LordBucket on July 01, 2013, 03:21:04 pm
Payment for services rendered
Show me a contract where I agreed to pay for your services.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 01, 2013, 03:23:21 pm
If you want art, pay the artist. If you dont want to pay, go make your own art, and give it away to others for free, if the time and effort spent on it has no value to you.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 03:25:17 pm
Payment for services rendered is not a foreign, bizarre, mind-blowing new-agey concept... it's the basis of civilization.Ha ha oh wow
Post by: LordBucket on July 01, 2013, 03:31:17 pm
If you want art, pay the artist. If you dont want to pay, go make your own art.
Let's see where this goes.
I assert that I am creating my own art when I download a copy of yours
If I see your bicycle, and use my own materials to build my own bicycle based on your design, that's not stealing, right? Why is it stealing if I see your picture and use my computer to make a new picture based on yours?
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 01, 2013, 03:34:54 pm
If you want to access legal advice, you pay a lawyer. You dont get the advice, then not pay. If you dont want legal representation, defend yourself. For free.Perhaps, like the lawyer, the artist should make sure they have a contract before they waste their time to create something people may be willing to consume but clearly aren't willing to pay for?
If you want art, pay the artist. If you dont want to pay, go make your own art, and give it away to others for free, if the time and effort spent on it has no value to you.
If a lawyer simply started representing clients, and then demanded cash from everyone in the courtroom for listening to their legal arguments and the stenographer in particular for writing them down, and all the future legal students who might review the case, they'd be laughed at of the building and publicly shamed, an the client would be told to get a lawyer that isn't an idiot. But they don't have to worry about that sort of madness, because they make sure they'll get paid before any work is done, instead of trying to strongarm everyone who may have tangentially benefited from their work after they've gone and put it out there.
Believe it or not, this is historically how artists worked - and even today, many artists still do! It's called "commission" - and almost everyone who makes money doing creative works, either gets paid by commission or gets paid a salary.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 01, 2013, 03:38:20 pm
If you want art, pay the artist. If you dont want to pay, go make your own art.
Let's see where this goes.
I assert that I am creating my own art when I download a copy of yours
If I see your bicycle, and use my own materials to build my own bicycle based on your design, that's not stealing, right? Why is it stealing if I see your picture and use my computer to make a new picture based on yours?
It isnt stealing - but here is the important bit - I never said that it was stealing. I hold it immoral to not compensate someone for thier efforts, be it financially or in kind. You pay your bills, pay your taxes and suchlike, right? Why? Out of a sense of duty or simply out of fear for the consequences if you dont?
If you want to access legal advice, you pay a lawyer. You dont get the advice, then not pay. If you dont want legal representation, defend yourself. For free.Perhaps, like the lawyer, the artist should make sure they have a contract before they waste their time to create something people may be willing to consume but clearly aren't willing to pay for?
If you want art, pay the artist. If you dont want to pay, go make your own art, and give it away to others for free, if the time and effort spent on it has no value to you.
If a lawyer simply started representing clients, and then demanded cash from everyone in the courtroom for listening to their legal arguments and the stenographer in particular for writing them down, and all the future legal students who might review the case, they'd be laughed at of the building and publicly shamed, an the client would be told to get a lawyer that isn't an idiot. But they don't have to worry about that sort of madness, because they make sure they'll get paid before any work is done, instead of trying to strongarm everyone who may have tangentially benefited from their work after they've gone and put it out there.
Believe it or not, this is historically how artists worked - and even today, many artists still do! It's called "commission" - and almost everyone who makes money doing creative works, either gets paid by commission or gets paid a salary.
Yep, I agree. This is why earlier I made the distinction that Piracy is theft against the outmoded distribution structure of media, not the creators. However, with regards to art/media, if people arent willing to pay for, the creator will stop creating it - supply and demand again. If there is demand, people will pay for it. Thats how economies work, right?
Post by: LordBucket on July 01, 2013, 03:39:57 pm
It isnt stealing - but here is the important bit - I never said that it was stealing. I hold it
immoral to not compensate someone for thier efforts
I see. So then, if I wish your car windows then send you a bill, you'll pay?
Post by: da_nang on July 01, 2013, 03:40:32 pm
QFT.If you want to access legal advice, you pay a lawyer. You dont get the advice, then not pay. If you dont want legal representation, defend yourself. For free.Perhaps, like the lawyer, the artist should make sure they have a contract before they waste their time to create something people may be willing to consume but clearly aren't willing to pay for?
If you want art, pay the artist. If you dont want to pay, go make your own art, and give it away to others for free, if the time and effort spent on it has no value to you.
If a lawyer simply started representing clients, and then demanded cash from everyone in the courtroom for listening to their legal arguments and the stenographer in particular for writing them down, and all the future legal students who might review the case, they'd be laughed at of the building and publicly shamed, an the client would be told to get a lawyer that isn't an idiot. But they don't have to worry about that sort of madness, because they make sure they'll get paid before any work is done, instead of trying to strongarm everyone who may have tangentially benefited from their work after they've gone and put it out there.
Believe it or not, this is historically how artists worked - and even today, many artists still do! It's called "commission" - and almost everyone who makes money doing creative works, either gets paid by commission or gets paid a salary.
Might need an agile model for it, though.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 01, 2013, 03:41:34 pm
It isnt stealing - but here is the important bit - I never said that it was stealing. I hold it
immoral to not compensate someone for thier efforts
I see. So then, if I wish your car windows then send you a bill, you'll pay?
If it was a service I wanted and sought out and requested, I should pay for it.
If I want to watch a movie, I pay to get access to the cinema. The cinema doesnt speculativley send me an invoice incase I might want to go and watch a film.
Post by: LordBucket on July 01, 2013, 03:44:48 pm
If it was a service I wanted and sought out and requested, I should pay for it.
1) How are you "requesting service" by downloading a file made available by an unaffiliated third party?
2) You are clicking on, therefore "seeking and requesting" the content of my thread posts. Should you be paying me for that?
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 01, 2013, 03:47:50 pm
If it was a service I wanted and sought out and requested, I should pay for it.Would you mind if I tripled the bill when I heard you let two of your friends look through it afterwards? (Hey, they are benefiting from the effort I put on, so they should have to pay for it, right?)
Because if you're arguing against piracy, you're arguing against people sharing the benefits of something they paid for in most cases. The artist is getting paid, and they in fact getting paid as much as they asked, they just aren't getting paid enough - that's the fundamental argument that copyright holders tend to make, really. That if more people benefit, they should get paid more, even if it costs them no additional effort whatsoever.
Would you support that sort of entitled thinking in other areas of your life? Should we have to pay a few for each child who may use it when we purchase a toy? Because I know some companies who not only love that but are actively trying to make it a reality.
But personally, I find that attitude pretty disgusting. It is making on the fundamental impulses, sharing and giving for others what you have acquired for yourself, what many consider to be a virtue, into a criminal act.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 01, 2013, 03:54:05 pm
If it was a service I wanted and sought out and requested, I should pay for it.
1) How are you "requesting service" by downloading a file made available by an unaffiliated third party?
2) You are clicking on, therefore "seeking and requesting" the content of my thread posts. Should you be paying me for that?
1) By wanting to access the media. Can you walk into a building and shout "THIS IS MINE NOW" and expect it to stick? I dont get why anyone should feel entitled to the fruits of another labours without some kind of exchange.
2) Maybe I should clarify my thinking - "paying" does not strictly mean cash. Both you and I are expending equal amounts of effort in terms of time creating posts - there is no gross imbalance here, and if either of us feels like we do not have to post and nobody is worse off. In sitting on my ass and watching TV, I am expending jack shit, hence a balance needs to be made in some way, be it by being exposed to commericals, paying some kinda fee, whatever. If the maker of media chooses not to make it, then I need not enter into an exchange with them.
If it was a service I wanted and sought out and requested, I should pay for it.Would you mind if I tripled the bill when I heard you let two of your friends look through it afterwards? (Hey, they are benefiting from the effort I put on, so they should have to pay for it, right?)
Because if you're arguing against piracy, you're arguing against people sharing the benefits of something they paid for in most cases. The artist is getting paid, and they in fact getting paid as much as they asked, they just aren't getting paid enough - that's the fundamental argument that copyright holders tend to make, really. That if more people benefit, they should get paid more, even if it costs them no additional effort whatsoever.
Would you support that sort of entitled thinking in other areas of your life? Should we have to pay a few for each child who may use it when we purchase a toy? Because I know some companies who not only love that but are actively trying to make it a reality.
But personally, I find that attitude pretty disgusting. It is making on the fundamental impulses, sharing and giving for others what you have acquired for yourself, what many consider to be a virtue, into a criminal act.
Fair use policy? TBH I feel that I am being backed into some kid of devlis advocate postition here - can I make it clear I am only in favour of making sure that content creators are justly rewarded for thier efforts (specialisation of labour and all that), not arguing in favour of seperate entity copyright holders fleecing all and sundry?
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 01, 2013, 03:57:53 pm
Again, I understand Bauglir's argument, but it's very different from your own. Why do you actually think the copyright system is needed?
Post by: LordBucket on July 01, 2013, 04:03:28 pm
I dont get why anyone should feel entitled to the fruits of another labours without some kind of exchange.
If I copy a file, the artist is not giving me anything. His picture that he made is still in his studio. The paint he used to make it is still on canvas in his possession. Then somebody else came along and used their tools and labor to create a digital copy, and I'm using my tools and labor to create a digital copy of the digital copy.
Why do you expect me to give the artist something when he's not giving me anything?
Quote
By wanting to access the media.
I'm not accessing his media. I'm not touching it. I don't have it. He still does. No transfer of ownership occurs, and not one atom, not one electron that I have access to at any point was ever in his possession.
Quote
Maybe I should clarify my thinking
That is my intent.
Quote
can I make it clear I am only in favour of making sure that
content creators are justly rewarded for thier efforts
Ok. So then if you create a song, put it on CD and sell it to Bob for $20, you have received just reward for your effort. Right? And then Bob makes a copy for me.
Why should you be rewarded for Bob's labor?
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 01, 2013, 04:15:42 pm
I dont get why anyone should feel entitled to the fruits of another labours without some kind of exchange.
If I copy a file, the artist is not giving me anything. His picture that he made is still in his studio. The paint he used to make it is still on canvas in his possession. Then somebody else came along and used their tools and labor to create a digital copy, and I'm using my tools and labor to create a digital copy of the digital copy.
Why do you expect me to give the artist something when he's not giving me anything?QuoteBy wanting to access the media.
I'm not accessing his media. I'm not touching it. I don't have it. He still does. No transfer of ownership occurs, and not one atom, not one electron that I have access to at any point was ever in his possession.QuoteMaybe I should clarify my thinking
That is my intent.Quotecan I make it clear I am only in favour of making sure that
content creators are justly rewarded for thier efforts
Ok. So then if you create a song, put it on CD and sell it to Bob for $20, you have received just reward for your effort. Right? And then Bob makes a copy for me.
Why should you be rewarded for Bob's labor?
Oh, now I get why we disagree. Right. I shouldnt be rewarded for Bobs efforts - Bob should. I was under the misconception that you thought that the person who created the material in the first place deserves no compensation at all. I think we were referring to different entities when we were referring to content creators. Of course, in your first example, the artist should have the right to control the image as he sees fit in the first instance - if he decides nobody should take a copy, it is his right as creator. But once he allows one copy in exchange for whatever he sees fit, it is hard for them to backtrack and say that there should be no subsequent copies. The creator can sure as hell try and stipulate (as would be thier right, after all it would not exists without thier work) that they are entitled to subsequent payments, but free market economics would surely favour those that do not require such an approach.
I guess the trick here is for the content originator could provide thier work directly at a more competetive price/exchange than those trying to make a profit from obtaining it then selling it on - dealing direct with thier consumer base, rather than through publishers, which seems to be the way grass roots stuff is going nowadays more and more. Many people do not want copies - they want legitimate originals as many content creators have some kind of "worth" or prestiege (spelling?) attached to them, and as people will want to support the creators they wish to see create more in the future. However If people undercut content creators, eventually there would be no content to make a profit from.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 04:28:44 pm
Anyone who has ever had anything of thier own plagarised knows the bitter feeling of others getting credit for your efforts.I do not seek to speak for everyone, but I also make sure that others do the same. There is quite a charm when you write something of value, and give no claim to authorship. Like setting a bird free, there may come a day when you see it again and smile. You say, 'that's my bird.' And someone besides you smiles too, and says the same.
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 01, 2013, 05:00:12 pm
Also the bit about copyright being created to protect intellectual property of individuals is just false. You can go and pull up the law if you wish the intent is quite clear - its not to protect anything, it is simply to encourage more people to create stuff more often. The powers it offers creators and owners is a byproduct, not the purpose.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 01, 2013, 05:08:36 pm
Copyright... doesn't have much to do with plagiarism. How often have you seen the creator of a pop song or the musicians who put it together credited on an album? Not often Id imagine. Many people genuinanly believe the name of the "artist" is the name of the creator, something companies intentionally encourage since it leads to more sales, but the plagiarism is perfectly legal. It doesn't matter to the law who the creator is or that they get credited, only that the owner gets to say who makes copies and the form they take.
Also the bit about copyright being created to protect intellectual property of individuals is just false. You can go and pull up the law if you wish the intent is quite clear - its not to protect anything, it is simply to encourage more people to create stuff more often. The powers it offers creators and owners is a byproduct, not the purpose.
Having just reached out for some of my CD's I can confirm that all of them have whoever is responsible for the lyrics, musical composition and artwork is credited in the paperwork in some way. Its not on the front in big letters, but its there. Not that this changes anything about who gets to exploit the creation, or who is perceived to be the creator due to cynical marketing... :(
Quote from: Wikipedia
The Copyright Law of the United States intends to encourage the creation of art and culture by rewarding authors and artists with a set of exclusive rights. Federal Copyright law grants authors and artists the exclusive right to make and sell copies of their works, the right to create derivative works, and the right to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death.
US Copyright law is governed by the federal Copyright Act of 1976. The constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to create copyright law. Specifically, Congress has the power:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, (the Copyright Clause)
Whilst I am not going to disagree with you on the fact that copyright law is to encourage creation (which came as one hell of a suprise to me), it seems to me to want to encourage creation through protecting the creators by giving the copyright owners a temporary monopoly (however right or wrong as a concept this is) over distribution and derivative works. This would be less of an issue if the originators of content were the copyright holders, but this seems to very seldom be the case.
Anyway, thank you people for a most stimulating exchange of ideas. Alas, I now need to go sleep.
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2013, 06:07:18 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 01, 2013, 06:29:53 pm
Having just reached out for some of my CD's I can confirm that all of them have whoever is responsible for the lyrics, musical composition and artwork is credited in the paperwork in some way. Its not on the front in big letters, but its there. Not that this changes anything about who gets to exploit the creation, or who is perceived to be the creator due to cynical marketing... :(This is why I explicitly mentioned pop music rather than just "music", heh. It was a point that there is no legal force against plagiarism, unless it's part of a contract, which is still just a civil matter and could cover most anything.
Quote
Whilst I am not going to disagree with you on the fact that copyright law is to encourage creation (which came as one hell of a suprise to me), it seems to me to want to encourage creation through protecting the creators by giving the copyright owners a temporary monopoly (however right or wrong as a concept this is) over distribution and derivative works. This would be less of an issue if the originators of content were the copyright holders, but this seems to very seldom be the case.Yes, that is the method that was decided on, but I think it's important to re-evaluate methods in terms of the original goal. If the method isn't serving that purpose, there's no particular reason to keep it around, at least from purpose of respect for it's original purpose. We probably SHOULD keep it around, in some form, but I don't think we disagree all that strongly when I say the shape should be significantly different from what it is now - and that any form it takes should keep this, the explicit goal, in mind.
Quote
Anyway, thank you people for a most stimulating exchange of ideas. Alas, I now need to go sleep.Thank you as well, I enjoyed the conversation.
Post by: Darkmere on July 01, 2013, 08:23:57 pm
I assert that I am creating my own art when I download a copy of yours
And I say writing "LordBucket" on a copy of Titus Andronicus doesn't make you William Shakespeare.
Ok. So then if you create a song, put it on CD and sell it to Bob for $20, you have received just reward for your effort. Right? And then Bob makes a copy for me.
Why should you be rewarded for Bob's labor?
Because bob wasn't the one who formed a band, organized rehearsals, went to a studio, hired the production staff to get the CD out the door, etc. etc.
So, it goes back to what I've asked before. If you go to great effort to put on a stage production, then someone records it without your knowledge, and sells all the tapes to people who now won't go see your show (and hence, pay you), the cameraman deserves every cent he made for making copies of your show, instead of you, who made the show?
Post by: Vector on July 01, 2013, 08:42:10 pm
Okay, okay. But I would like to know why you think the existent completely practical concepts of commission and work-for-hire aren't enough to ensure content creators are properly compensated? Why is the copyright system necessary on top of it, if not to enable these third parties?
Because it keeps away from the patronage system, where one dude who is very very rich commissions a work of art and then shares or doesn't share at his leisure.
If I make a book and sell one copy for $20 and then that person shares it all over the internet, then I don't think that's fair. If they gave me $20,000, I'd probably be okay with it. But that puts undue control in the hands of, again, the very, very rich.
I'll also note that some mathematicians I know have said that they'll make their textbooks free for all after they die. This seems sensible. Their patrons (the mathematical community) paid their $20,000, now it's free for everyone.
Post by: Pnx on July 01, 2013, 09:05:05 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on July 01, 2013, 09:18:54 pm
Post by: Vector on July 01, 2013, 09:20:14 pm
Post by: alexandertnt on July 01, 2013, 09:28:59 pm
I cant say I really agree with you, but I admit given it took me a few read through's to get to this conclusion I at least think I have learnt something.
I can somewhat agree with you though in the context of publishing. In the sense that the publishers did not actually create the work but are legally entitled to the control of it for some reason. This does seem a bit wonky.
Copyright tends to favor big business over small ones.
Current law tends to, yes. Thats why I think the current laws need to be changed (and heavily nerfed). The basic concept of copyright is to favour the creator (well, idealy). Maby copyright should be untransferrable? Then perhaps publishers would stop becomming legally entitled to something they did not actually create.
I'll also note that some mathematicians I know have said that they'll make their textbooks free for all after they die. This seems sensible. Their patrons (the mathematical community) paid their $20,000, now it's free for everyone.
I think that the length of copyright needs to be shortened, to allow works to be accessable by all after a reasonable period of time (rather than the life+70 years or such sillyness we have now). The original point of the temporary monopoly granted by copyright is to reward the creator, so copyrighting beyond the creators life seems odd.
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 01, 2013, 09:34:05 pm
Exactly. And I'd probably consider that as a process for future works, other than the fact that I'm going to want to make some set amount of profit and crowd-sourcers usually don't like that.
... uh, most kickstarters have quite a bit of personal profit built in. Since "salary" is usually one of their major items even for the minimum value to fund, and that is nothing but individual profit.
Post by: Vector on July 01, 2013, 10:05:22 pm
(Let's not discuss it, just meaning to say that a lot of detractors complained that money received > money required for creation, so I thought that was a general Kickstarter rule).
The life + 70 years thing is supposed to make it so that the heirs benefit some from their parents' creations and derivative works don't pop up the moment the creator kicks it.
I dunno. I don't feel that good about for-profit derivative works in a live franchise, to be honest.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 01, 2013, 10:17:48 pm
The life + 70 years thing is supposed to make it so that the heirs benefit some from their parents' creations and derivative works don't pop up the moment the creator kicks it.
That is true, but their heirs have not done anything to produce the copyrighted material. It seems arbitrary that they would benefit from somone elses work.
tbh, I think copyright-for-life is too long, but I can understand the arguments for it, as opposed to the +70 bit.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 01, 2013, 10:21:24 pm
Post by: WealthyRadish on July 01, 2013, 10:22:08 pm
Post by: Vector on July 01, 2013, 10:35:12 pm
That is true, but their heirs have not done anything to produce the copyrighted material. It seems arbitrary that they would benefit from somone elses work.
Their heirs also have not done anything to deserve other property.
Post by: Darkmere on July 01, 2013, 10:50:12 pm
LordBucket and GlyphGryth, So as far as I see now, your argument is against copyright itself and copyright entitlements, not against artists getting compensated somehow per se.
See, I think Glyph is saying that... but what I honestly get from Bucket is that if someone goes to the trouble and expense of making a (something, CD's for example), you are literally entitled to zero profit from that, or at best you can sell the CD to a single person and then they suddenly should get the entirety of the creative control over it and you should be happy with your $20 and go home.
I'm convinced there's some sort of communicative breakdown here, as (it seems) everyone feels creators are entitled to be compensated, but HOW they are compensated is a huge factor. I feel that some form of copyright (SOME FORM, not necessarily the current enforcement standard) is the method of making sure people who create marketable goods and seek livable wages from doing so are not completely vulnerable to someone else saying "man, that was a good idea. I bet I could sell it, after contributing nothing to its development" and making a living exploiting someone else's work.
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2013, 10:55:05 pm
Quote
not against artists getting compensated somehow per se
I don't think anyone here is against artists being compensated for their work... but whether the current system to try to ensure that is just.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 01, 2013, 11:00:09 pm
i read both threads, though i didn't realise they were different 'till i noticed that my post wasn't on this one. it still aplies here, 'cuz it's really the same discussion, so i'm cross posting
i pirate freely and guiltlessly. i sometimes purchase stuff i can't pirate and often regret, my money is little and precious. i also sometimes purchase stuff i pirated and enjoyed, as a form of donation, and i've donated to toady and other free content creators recurrently.
i do want a system to be in place to incentive, sustain, and reward good creators, there is one in place right now that does it with disputable efficiency and it features copyright, but it's proving to be unenforceable and making legitimate customers' life harder, while barely hindering us pirates. i believe art, science, and entertainment should be free and subsidized by state run public institutions, private associations, and private donations; you fill out a proposal, request a set ammount of money for a set amount of time, and then send it out to these institutions along with your credentials\portfolio, or put it up on a kickstarter-like, and in the end your work becomes public domain and is rated by how much critics and laypeople appreciated it, giving you a better or worse chance to get further subsidies on future projects.
i don't like artificial scarcity. we should be offering up more stuff for free, it'd make for a better world
i'm quite poor by first world standards, though i recognise i've it better than a lot of people in this world, but i would have played a lot less games, seen a lot less movies, read a lot less books, and listened to a lot less music if i had to pay for all of it. I feel i am a better person for having had access to so much culture, and i feel it's very sad that people want to deny so many people something that is so abundant and so important.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 01, 2013, 11:20:23 pm
The vast, vast, vast majority of all creative work makes pretty much all the money it's ever going to make within 10 years at most. I seriously question whether there's really any incentive to create new material in having copyright last much longer than that, and further suggest it encourages companies to keep making money form their popular but ancient IP rather than creating new ones.
Copyright is there to encourage people to invent new ideas etc, but it would seem that if the length of copyright is too long it has the opposite effect.
The two arguments I see regarding lifelong copyright is:
A) I am still alive, its still mine (which seems like a fair argument to me)
B) Lifelong (or just overly long) copyright hampers new development and causes stagnation (which also seems like a fair argument to me)
I feel that some form of copyright (SOME FORM, not necessarily the current enforcement standard) is the method of making sure people who create marketable goods and seek livable wages from doing so are not completely vulnerable to someone else saying "man, that was a good idea. I bet I could sell it, after contributing nothing to its development" and making a living exploiting someone else's work.
That is also how I feel. It seems to me some form of system is necessary to ensure creators can continue to create and to encourage people to create.
I don't think anyone here is against artists being compensated for their work... but whether the current system to try to ensure that is just.
It appears LordBucket's argument is against any system ensuring that, not just against the current system. I think alot of people here are agreeing that the current system is either doing a poor job, or is just overkill.
Askot Bokbondeler, your idea is interesting, but it would seem to make it hard for small independents to do it alone. It would seem to nearly necessitate the need for a publisher, and that publiser would likely expect a return of at least break-even (for some sort of not-for-profit publicher) if they are giving you money. That would seem to make it difficult for those with less conventional and thus potentially less profitable ideas to get anywhere.
As someone who wants to be an independent game developer, I just want to produce a game and offer it for people to purchase. With the money I might make I could go on and spend more time making better games with more advanced tools. If my product were to fall into the public domain when I release it, it would require me to seek a publisher, or a kickstarter campaign, and to aquire the funds to do this before hand. This would put alot of stress on me to not fail and may inevidably make alot of people unhappy (tbh, I would rather be poor than make alot of people unhappy). in other words, I like the general idea of copyright because it allows me to function independently as an individual. I can simply say "Here is my game, who is interested?".
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 01, 2013, 11:54:11 pm
Quote
Askot Bokbondeler, your idea is interesting, but it would seem to make it hard for small independents to do it alone. It would seem to nearly necessitate the need for a publisher, and that publiser would likely expect a return of at least break-even (for some sort of not-for-profit publicher) if they are giving you money. That would seem to make it difficult for those with less conventional and thus potentially less profitable ideas to get anywhere.i don't think it makes it harder for small independent projects, you can still work on whatever you want and request donations, and since the paradigm had shifted to one where everything is donation based i expect these would be much more abundant. you could "sell" the completed game to one or several of these organizations, they'd probably hand out subsidies more easily to games that are at least partly developed than risk the money of contributors on promises. you can use the game as an example of your work to request funding for your next project or participate in contests with monetary prizes that would, again, increase your chances of getting your project approved or being picked up for a team.
As someone who wants to be an independent game developer, I just want to produce a game and offer it for people to purchase. With the money I might make I could go on and spend more time making better games with more advanced tools. If my product were to fall into the public domain when I release it, it would require me to seek a publisher, or a kickstarter campaign, and to aquire the funds to do this before hand. This would put alot of stress on me to not fail and may inevidably make alot of people unhappy (tbh, I would rather be poor than make alot of people unhappy). in other words, I like the general idea of copyright because it allows me to function independently as an individual. I can simply say "Here is my game, who is interested?".
the kickstarter-like could also manage the donations for you and award them periodically instead of giving it all upfront, so if you wanted to give up halfway someone could pick up where you left and reap the remaining share. your reputation would be tarnished though, and you shouldn't expect to have an easy time pitching another project. you could still work on a project at your expenses to try and redeem yourself
i expect the "market" would be flooded with advertisement funded studios and organisations, but if that is a problem for you as a customer you could simply join an association and pay a monthly fee to support advertisement free games of your favourite niche, and filling out surveys and voting in polls specifying where you want your funds to be spent, etc.
Post by: Bauglir on July 02, 2013, 12:16:19 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: alexandertnt on July 02, 2013, 12:44:44 am
Your idea to use games as part of a portfolio still suffers from the same problem, I am still relying on these organisations to approve my project and provide the money, rather than being able to request money from individuals who are interested in using my completed product.
Advertisement funded games could work to some degree, but again rely on an external organisation to provide the funding. Also, What incentive does the advertisement company have to listen to polls and surverys?
But in the end, I don't see why a person shouldnt be able to request money for something they have spent time and effort to create in a way that suits them. If you think what they want is outrageous, you can just ignore them.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 12:58:58 am
Just for the sake of argument, I think I would be okay with a copyright system like the one I'm about to outline, until somebody here points out the obvious flaws I've failed to notice.The two I find most obvious:
- 10 years is not nearly enough. Many artists are only "discovered" long after the creation of their work, many even after their death. There would only be a copyright if you "break through" immediately. This would work with some commercial driven art or computer games, but is not really applicable to music, literature etc, where something may only become relevant after decades.
And what about ongoing work, would Toady lose copyright of DF 10 years after he started creating it?
- You use the word "derivative" quite often, but "derivative" is difficult to define in that context. In fact almost all art is in some way derivative of something. The way that infringes upon copyright varies. In music often experts are needed to tell if a work is derivative enough to infringe on copyright, if it's not blatantly obvious as in cover versions or extensive sampling. In literature it is often the use of characters or names that is copyrighted.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 02, 2013, 01:09:03 am
10 years does seens somewhat too short though.
Post by: Bauglir on July 02, 2013, 01:20:49 am
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 01:29:13 am
Also it's about ownership. All relevant music by the Rolling Stones is older than 30 years, but I think they should have a say wether their music can be used in commercials or political campaigns. (IIRC Angela Merkels campaign 4 years ago used "Angie" and the Stones were not too happy about it.)
Post by: Frumple on July 02, 2013, 01:43:35 am
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 01:51:47 am
... why would losing copyright stop the original artists from profiting from re-releases? You can use public domain stuff to make cash all you like, last time I paid attention to it. So long as someone'll pay for it, anyway.Because you can't make sure that YOU profit from it. I mean, just look at all the russian bootleg labels, in small markets that really hurts your profits. Also again, ownership.
I think the notion that artists should be able to make a living off their work is slightly wrong, there certainly should be the posiibility, but 90% of artists cannot make a living off their work and that has never been different.
The people who complain the most about piracy - besides the big corporations of course - are disappointed that they can't live off their work. But market saturation makes it pretty much impossible for every creative work to become that big of a commercial success. Just look at the music scene, where most mid-level successful artists have to have day jobs, even if they make a profit from their music. How many authors, musicians or painters can really subside on their work alone? I think the explosion of the computer game market in the last 20 years has mislead many people into thinking that they could make a living creating games, when there are just too many programmers and games to allow that.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 02, 2013, 01:53:23 am
I dont see donations being able to bring in anywhere near as much money.i can't change your mind here. i believe it wouldn't be the case, since pirating is so easy now i think we're already partly there, where whenever someone buys software they're already making a donation.
Quote
Ontop of that I am not sure where these investors would get the money to invest in projects if the end result is available free of charge.these investors would be end users and organizations that make money off of distributing donations plus the sale of merchandising and physical goods like cd's, manuals, magazines, etc.
Quote
Games can cost millions,bad games, often. good games are generally much cheaper, and those that are good and expensive aren't good because they were expensive. Nevertheless, i think millionaire productions would still exist.
Quote
and while it is possible to get this money through some means, it is much harder. If they were subsidised by the state, that could work. But you would still then be paying for the game (even if you dont want to play it).these organizations would be varied and represent the interests of their investors, you could pitch to a few narrow organizations that cater to the specific niche you're targeting. if you can't convince them with a finished game you'd have a hard time selling it either. all they're interested in is to be able to boast to have financed a lot of quality games so they can attract more donors interested in more games being madeQuoteyou'de be paying an amount adjusted to how much you can payYour idea to use games as part of a portfolio still suffers from the same problem, I am still relying on these organisations to approve my project and provide the money, rather than being able to request money from individuals who are interested in using my completed product.
Quote
Advertisement funded games could work to some degree, but again rely on an external organisation to provide the funding. Also, What incentive does the advertisement company have to listen to polls and surverys?a lot. polls and surveys help them decide on which games to invest based on public demand, and which type of adds are more appropriate for which type of game, but when i mentioned polls and surveys i was talking about "advertisement free" game sponsors that gather investors by promising to listen to input and forfeiting advertisement
Quote
But in the end, I don't see why a person shouldnt be able to request money for something they have spent time and effort to create in a way that suits them. If you think what they want is outrageous, you can just ignore them.as i said, i think it is sad to deny someone access to culture or knowlege, or anything that isn't scarce.
another argument is that the current system awards good marketing instead of awarding good work, in my proposed system creators would be awarded based on the popularity and reviews of their work after people have played said work, instead of tricking people into buying a buggy and\or shitty game
Post by: Darkmere on July 02, 2013, 02:32:08 am
Just for the sake of argument, I think I would be okay with a copyright system like the one I'm about to outline, until somebody here points out the obvious flaws I've failed to notice. Trying to spell everything out here, just to make it as internally consistent as possible. Hopefully I haven't missed any typos, and I apologize for the faux legalese.
Only applying copyright to published works is really, really bad, unless you use a nebulous definition of "published". As my example... Say I work on a novel draft for 5 or 6 years. As is approaches completion, I take it to an art critic, who turns his copy into a publisher and gets his name on the author card, and all they money or fame or whatever. I prefer the current system (at least in the US) where everyone owns a copyright of literally everything they create, and you pay a bit extra to register that material if you're serious about marketability.
I've already run into gray areas as it is, and the system is pretty straightforward on the surface.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 02, 2013, 03:06:49 am
bad games, often. good games are generally much cheaper
This is an opinion, not a fact. Many people would disagree with this.
Quote
as i said, i think it is sad to deny someone access to culture or knowlege, or anything that isn't scarce.
I think it is sad to be forced to allow people to access and utilise the product of your labour at their will, that is something you worked on hard to bring into existance, because "culture".
I would also like to point out that while a copy of a digital product is not scarce, digital products themselves are very much capable of becoming scarce.
Quote
another argument is that the current system awards good marketing instead of awarding good work, in my proposed system creators would be awarded based on the popularity and reviews of their work after people have played said work, instead of tricking people into buying a buggy and\or shitty game
I can agree with what you say the current system encourages. But in your system, creators only might be rewarded based on the popularity of their works.
Quote
these investors would be end users and organizations that make money off of distributing donations plus the sale of merchandising and physical goods like cd's, manuals, magazines, etc.
Yeah, this could work. But for merchandise sales to fund developlement like this it would require the publishing organisation to have a monopoly on that merchandice, or another company unrelated to the development of the product can prroduce the merchandise too (and probably cheaper, as they are not funding the development of anything) and potentially reduce the income of these development organisations.
Post by: Bdthemag on July 02, 2013, 03:14:23 am
This is an opinion, not a fact. Many people would disagree with this.Here's an off-topic video game related rant based on this, so feel free to ignore it.
Many people would also agree with it, but it IS a fact however that in general the budgets of the "AAA" titles have been rapidly increasing over the years. Much of this money is generally directed towards marketing and graphics, and publishers want to keep pumping money into it. They're essentially inflating their budgets, while demanding more money from the consumers. This is done in various ways. Through DLC, trying to stop piracy, trying to stop used games, etcetera. The reason we're suddenly seeing more nickle and dime tactics, as well as publishers looking for more ways to increase revenue even though it's not needed, is because they want to pour more and more money into a game. This may be seen as a good thing, but you have to keep in mind that money will just pour into the two main things they've already been pouring money into. This just means that more money will be pumped into advertising and marketing, resulting in more of a focus on building hype than building a good game. Have you ever noticed that some of the best games released each year are the one's that are either indie or low budget, while many of the rehashes and blunders of each year are the one's that cost companies millions?
Post by: alexandertnt on July 02, 2013, 03:51:12 am
Many people would also agree with it, but it IS a fact however that in general the budgets of the "AAA" titles have been rapidly increasing over the years. Much of this money is generally directed towards marketing and graphics, and publishers want to keep pumping money into it. They're essentially inflating their budgets, while demanding more money from the consumers. This is done in various ways. Through DLC, trying to stop piracy, trying to stop used games, etcetera. The reason we're suddenly seeing more nickle and dime tactics, as well as publishers looking for more ways to increase revenue even though it's not needed, is because they want to pour more and more money into a game. This may be seen as a good thing, but you have to keep in mind that money will just pour into the two main things they've already been pouring money into. This just means that more money will be pumped into advertising and marketing, resulting in more of a focus on building hype than building a good game.
Yeah, they tend to be a bit wasteful in this regards. I just said games can cost millions, which may or may not be wasted on these thigns.
Quote
Have you ever noticed that some of the best games released each year are the one's that are either indie or low budget, while many of the rehashes and blunders of each year are the one's that cost companies millions?
Best games how? Highest-rated? Biggest-income?
I have no doubt that you feel like this, and thats fine. But keep in mind what you find "best" people may not agree with.
Post by: Jimmy on July 02, 2013, 04:12:46 am
Also the bit about copyright being created to protect intellectual property of individuals is just false. You can go and pull up the law if you wish the intent is quite clear - its not to protect anything, it is simply to encourage more people to create stuff more often. The powers it offers creators and owners is a byproduct, not the purpose.It's so interesting that in the discourse over copyright, most people completely ignore the fundamental goal of the laws in the first place. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Note that implicit in this is that the item must be either a work of art or an invention. The definition excludes media such as pornography, which isn't recognized as an art form and therefore can't be copyrighted. Interesting to note is that we must therefore assume all games are art.
It's also fascinating to view the steady progression of extensions over the exclusive rights to profit from a copyrighted work versus it entering the public domain.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Copyright_term.svg/625px-Copyright_term.svg.png)
Assuming an author lives for 70 years, the horizontal axis shows the year their work was published, and the vertical how many years must pass after their death before their work is public domain.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 04:29:06 am
Note that implicit in this is that the item must be either a work of art or an invention. The definition excludes media such as pornography, which isn't recognized as an art form and therefore can't be copyrighted. Interesting to note is that we must therefore assume all games are art.Why does it exclude pornography? That clearly can be art, while also a lot of art has been called pornography at times. There are lots of copyright lawsuits against filesharers who distribute copyrighted porn movies. Though just recently a US porn producer lost a lawsuit in a german court, since the court decided that the movies in question were not art (or lacked any creative value), and thus were not protected by copyright laws. That may depend on the individual case however, and apparently it was the first time that happened.
It's also fascinating to view the steady progression of extensions over the exclusive rights to profit from a copyrighted work versus it entering the public domain.The extensions probably have a lot to do with progress in technology and distribution models. There wasn't much to do with tie-in-merchandise and tv commercials in 1790.
Post by: Neonivek on July 02, 2013, 04:39:43 am
Quote
Why does it exclude pornography?
Artistic Snobbery.
As well Porn gets a very bad rap in general and often in irrational ways.
MIND YOU I don't watch porn.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 04:49:07 am
Sure, that is clear. However porn is protected by copyright laws usually, except in the case I mentioned above, where apparently the court was displeased with the lack of plot or something.QuoteWhy does it exclude pornography?
Artistic Snobbery.
As well Porn gets a very bad rap in general and often in irrational ways.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 02, 2013, 04:57:00 am
Sure, that is clear. However porn is protected by copyright laws usually, except in the case I mentioned above, where apparently the court was displeased with the lack of plot or something.
That raises some interesting questions on what can be considered art, particularly how difficult it is to work out what has artistic value. For example I couldnt possibly see how something would require a plot to be considered art.
MIND YOU I don't watch porn.
Of course you dont :P
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 05:18:36 am
The court said the movies in question just showed "sexual acts in a primitive manner" without the "depth of personal intellectual creation" that is required for something to be copyrighted in German law. I presume the "actors" retain their right of their own personal image, but this was a filesharing case. It was also the first time a court ruled that a porn movie wasn't worth copyright protection, which is why it was mentioned in an article. (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/ungewoehnlicher-gerichtsbeschluss-ueber-sexfilmchen-ohne-geistige-schoepfungstiefe-1.1709900)
But yeah, generally it is extremely difficult to determine what is art and what is not. There have been many court cases over things like that.
A famous one is the case when the heir of artist Joseph Beuys sued the Academy of Arts in Düsseldorf for damages after a janitor accidentally destroyed one of Beuys' installations. He won 40.000 DM in damages. The piece of art that was destroyed was a piece of butter placed in a corner of a room. (http://www.hamburger-kunsthalle.de/sammlungav/html_sammlung/b/beuys_1992_01.html)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on July 02, 2013, 05:40:46 am
Quote
I cant see why pornography cannot be regarded as art
Because people, generally speaking, do not respect it.
What people do not respect, cannot be art.
Quote
generally it is extremely difficult to determine what is art and what is not
No it is incredibly easy. Art is what is popular. Art is purely opinion and any objectivity in determining what is art and what is not has long since been lost.
Art is whatever you can convince someone else is art.
In other words the designation "art" is shallow.
Quote
The court said the movies in question just showed "sexual acts in a primitive manner" without the "depth of personal intellectual creation"
Let me just translate this to you: "It is of our opinion that sex cannot be art because we deemed it so. There is no real argument here and there is no thought behind our ruling"
The thing is that personal intellectual creation is entirely subjective. It is intentionally subjective.
Quote
Of course you dont
No I don't watch porn...
I also have no respect for porn and I don't like it. Yet I recognize that it is something that is deserving of copyright and the legal designation of art.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 05:59:25 am
What people do not respect, cannot be art.
Art is what is popular. Art is purely opinion and any objectivity in determining what is art and what is not has long since been lost.I agree with that except for the part about respect and popularity. A lot of art is neither respected nor popular. Not everything that is popular has necessarily a lot of artistic value.
Art is whatever you can convince someone else is art.
Let me just translate this to you: "It is of our opinion that sex cannot be art because we deemed it so. There is no real argument here and there is no thought behind our ruling"I disagree with that "translation", this wasn't about whether sex can be art, it was about a producer demanding a huge amount of damages from a filesharer. I have no idea what the movies looked like, but since porn is normally protected by copyright laws, they must have been really bad.
Post by: Neonivek on July 02, 2013, 06:04:29 am
Quote
A lot of art is neither respected nor popular.
Ok, shoot. Name a piece of art that is unpopular and despised that isn't just "a painting"
Quote
Not everything that is popular has necessarily a lot of artistic value
That is why I also included respected. Wallpaper is never going to have artistic value because it doesn't have respect.
Quote
I disagree with that "translation", this wasn't about whether sex can be art, it was about a producer demanding a huge amount of damages from a filesharer.
These huge amounts of cash would have not even been up for debate had it been an ordinary movie that was REALLY terrible. I mean the worst movie ever.
If it was Disaster Movie (an apt title) it would have still won the case.
Quote
I have no idea what the movies looked like, but since porn is normally protected by copyright laws, they must have been really bad.
This is another country and international law is meaningless unless the country agrees with it.
I've seen programs pirated in certain countries because their copyright laws allow it, or movies, or books, or shows (Often it is that "If it isn't licensed in this country, we do not recognize it as a product deserving of copyright))
It is very possible that this is a country where porn is frowned upon and the copyright laws are intentionally skewed against porn so that it doesn't get sold in the country.
Don't forget that there was this court case where someone was selling pornographic comic books NOT to minors, and out of reach and sight of minors, and was successfully trialed for essentially luring children to porn because "comics are for kids yo"
Post by: alexandertnt on July 02, 2013, 06:13:14 am
QuoteA lot of art is neither respected nor popular.
Ok, shoot. Name a piece of art that is unpopular and despised that isn't just "a painting"
Given your definition of art is "what is popular", I dont think this is possible... But I can try to explain how others may still see artistic value in something which is not popular, and how others can accept that something unpopular can still be art.
As someone who is into the underground-black-metal thing, I could make a very long list of bands and albums which you and very few people would have heard of. But If I show this to a normal person, who has never heard of these things, they generally have no issue accepting it as art. Many people I know of are turned off by this style of music (it is an aquired taste) but they have never claimed it is not art.
Ironically, some people may even consider its unpopularity as part of its artistic appeal. "Doing it for the art" sort of thing.
I also hope you got the "Of course you dont" thing was just a joke, I wasnt actually implying anything.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 06:21:09 am
What do you mean not just "a painting"? Anything can be art. The piece of butter I linked a few posts ago was famous and despised at the same time. It even has an article in the german wikipedia. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fettecke) The artist in question was known for questioning common notions of art.QuoteA lot of art is neither respected nor popular.
Ok, shoot. Name a piece of art that is unpopular and despised that isn't just "a painting"
Also some of my favourite music genres like Noise are very unpopular outside of a relatively small circle of people. MUCH more unpopular than for example underground Black Metal, which itself is not "popular".
It is very possible that this is a country where porn is frowned upon and the copyright laws are intentionally skewed against porn so that it doesn't get sold in the country.No, you misunderstood or didn't read the posts above. Porn is not especially well respected in Germany, but probably less frowned upon than in the US. It is protected by German copyright law. However in this - so far single - case, a court ruled that 2 specific porn movies were not worth the damages the producer demanded from a filesharer. I was merely citing the case as an exception, because porn is normally protected by copyright laws, other than what someone said a few posts above.
Post by: Neonivek on July 02, 2013, 06:23:39 am
Quote
I also hope you got the "Of course you dont" thing was just a joke, I wasnt actually implying anything.
So your sardonic accusation was just abrasive mockery. Good to know.
Quote
If I show this to a normal person, who has never heard of these things, they generally have no issue accepting it as art
Because they still respect it because they respect that most (if not all) music is art regardless of whether or not they like it.
Quote
some people may even consider its unpopularity as part of its artistic appeal. "Doing it for the art" sort of thing.
Ahh the "so bad its art" deal. Either that or Hipster art.
Quote
Porn is not especially well respected in Germany, but probably less frowned upon than in the US
Sort of... The United States has a very strong porn culture. It just pushes it out of polite company.
Quote
What do you mean not just "a painting"?
Something that won't get a free pass because it can piggyback on other pieces of art.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 02, 2013, 06:40:54 am
QuoteI also hope you got the "Of course you dont" thing was just a joke, I wasnt actually implying anything.
So your sardonic accusation was just abrasive mockery. Good to know.
My comment was neither "sardonic" nor was it mockery. If it came across as that then I apologise, but I am pretty sure any reasonable person who read that would not read it as such.
Quote
QuoteIf I show this to a normal person, who has never heard of these things, they generally have no issue accepting it as art
Because they still respect it because they respect that most (if not all) music is art regardless of whether or not they like it.Quotesome people may even consider its unpopularity as part of its artistic appeal. "Doing it for the art" sort of thing.
Ahh the "so bad its art" deal. Either that or Hipster art.
Yeah, ok. It still stands as a valid counterexample?
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 06:46:34 am
I guess you could call it Hipster art in a way, though without many of the things you would normally associate with that term. Rather "so extreme nobody else likes it" or "my secret thing nobody else knows about". Underground appeal, but not necessarily "so bad its art".QuoteIf I show this to a normal person, who has never heard of these things, they generally have no issue accepting it as art
Because they still respect it because they respect that most (if not all) music is art regardless of whether or not they like it.Quotesome people may even consider its unpopularity as part of its artistic appeal. "Doing it for the art" sort of thing.
Ahh the "so bad its art" deal. Either that or Hipster art.
And a lot of people have a hard time respecting that as art. You can hear music in art galleries that sounds like a broken stereo to most people, because, well, it kinda sounds like that. ;)
Post by: Vector on July 02, 2013, 07:32:48 am
Hm, perhaps. My thinking on 10 years is that, by then, if the work hasn't been discovered and earned you money, it's probably not going to be.
Nope. Example: certain math textbooks. You write a foundational math textbook and it will be purchased with fairly high regularity for, oh, fifty to sixty years. I'm not even talking about different editions, either. The amount of work and training it takes to produce such a text is really high, too... what can I say, I think it's reasonable to ask for more than 10 years.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 02, 2013, 08:03:23 am
The life + 70 years thing is supposed to make it so thatthe heirsthe publishers benefitsomefromtheir parents'creationsand derivative works don't pop up the moment the creator kicks itfor two lifetimes.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 02, 2013, 08:41:49 am
art is not about popularity, art is about exploring and stretching the concept of aesthetics.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 02, 2013, 08:52:53 am
The extensions probably have a lot to do with progress in technology and distribution models. There wasn't much to do with tie-in-merchandise and tv commercials in 1790.The actual reason is that large corporations have a lot of lobbying power and a financial interest in making sure that one thing which someone created decades ago (see: Mickey Mouse) can keep making them money.
Nope. Example: certain math textbooks. You write a foundational math textbook and it will be purchased with fairly high regularity for, oh, fifty to sixty years. I'm not even talking about different editions, either. The amount of work and training it takes to produce such a text is really high, too... what can I say, I think it's reasonable to ask for more than 10 years.If the book you made was so amazing that it's still relevant in 50 years time then it almost certainly made enough money in the first 10 years of its life to justify the cost of writing it/ incentivise you to make it. Further, I'd want to get such an excellent book into the public domain as soon as reasonably possible so that everyone can benefit from it.
e: Also generally you'd probably bring out new editions anyway
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 09:11:59 am
If the book you made was so amazing that it's still relevant in 50 years time then it almost certainly made enough money in the first 10 years of its life to justify the cost of writing it/ incentivise you to make it. Further, I'd want to get such an excellent book into the public domain as soon as reasonably possible so that everyone can benefit from it.That is just ridiculous. Look how many famous books didn't make any money in the first 10 years. Read up some biographies of writers, not many of them could live from their writing alone. That 10 year model would only work if you only wrote bestsellers, which most books are not and many famous books were not immediately. I can see how that could apply to something that ages very fast, like video games, but for other sectors such a model would be fatal.
If it is a scientific work there is no need for it to be in public domain anyway, these are accessible in libraries.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 02, 2013, 09:30:08 am
That is just ridiculous. Look how many famous books didn't make any money in the first 10 years.How many? I'm going to go ahead and suggest the answer is very, very few. Unless you're referring to stuff which only became popular after the author's death, in which case a longer copyright period would not have helped them at all (and indeed probably didn't help them at all, considering copyright law is a thing that exists in reality).
Read up some biographies of writers, not many of them could live from their writing alone.Sure. But isn't that a failure of the copyright system as it exists? Long copyright periods did not help them.
That 10 year model would only work if you only wrote bestsellers, which most books are not and many famous books were not immediately.It's true that most books are not bestsellers. However, the vast majority of books that are not bestsellers do not suddenly start making money decades after they were made - they never really make much money at all. Increasing the copyright length doesn't help these books or the people that write them.
I can see how that could apply to something that ages very fast, like video games, but for other sectors such a model would be fatal.I don't think any sector has a business model which depends on a creative product making money 10 years after publication. Sure, businesses would like to be able to keep a monopoly on a popular creative product indefinitely. But I don't think that means we should allow them to - we should instead be encouraging them to look for the next big thing, which is afterall what copyright is actually meant to do.
If it is a scientific work there is no need for it to be in public domain anyway, these are accessible in libraries.I'd like all of our kids to be able to access the best textbooks as soon as reasonably possible. Kids in poor areas likely do not have access to well-stocked libraries, and even if they did it would be far better if their school had permanent copies (or access to digital copies) which all of the kids could use in lessons.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 09:48:25 am
I would say it happens quite often, 10 years is not much for literature. Only very few books become bestsellers upon release. The early work of most authors becomes interesting to people if they manage to become popular later on, why shouldn't they benefit from that.That is just ridiculous. Look how many famous books didn't make any money in the first 10 years.How many? I'm going to go ahead and suggest the answer is very, very few. Unless you're referring to stuff which only became popular after the author's death, in which case a longer copyright period would not have helped them at all (and indeed probably didn't help them at all, considering copyright law is a thing that exists in reality).
It's not a failure of the copyright system, it's just a reality that very few people can make a living off creative work.Read up some biographies of writers, not many of them could live from their writing alone.Sure. But isn't that a failure of the copyright system as it exists? Long copyright periods did not help them.
Literature and music? 10 years is nothing. Looking only for the next big thing is incredibly short-sighted and quite shallow. Why not protect the classics?I can see how that could apply to something that ages very fast, like video games, but for other sectors such a model would be fatal.I don't think any sector has a business model which depends on a creative product making money 10 years after publication. Sure, businesses would like to be able to keep a monopoly on a popular creative product indefinitely. But I don't think that means we should allow them to - we should instead be encouraging them to look for the next big thing, which is afterall what copyright is actually meant to do.
They make some money over time. Some money over 50 years is much more than over just 10.That 10 year model would only work if you only wrote bestsellers, which most books are not and many famous books were not immediately.It's true that most books are not bestsellers. However, the vast majority of books that are not bestsellers do not suddenly start making money decades after they were made - they never really make much money at all. Increasing the copyright length doesn't help these books or the people that write them.
That is a failure of the education system and has nothing to do with copyright.If it is a scientific work there is no need for it to be in public domain anyway, these are accessible in libraries.I'd like all of our kids to be able to access the best textbooks as soon as reasonably possible. Kids in poor areas likely do not have access to well-stocked libraries, and even if they did it would be far better if their school had permanent copies (or access to digital copies) which all of the kids could use in lessons.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 02, 2013, 09:54:06 am
I would say it happens quite often, 10 years is not much for literature. Only very few books become bestsellers upon release. The early work of most authors becomes interesting to people if he manages to become popular later on, why shouldn't they benefit from that.Yes, very few books become bestsellers upon release. No, not very many books suddenly become bestsellers 10 years after they're released. The authors who do become popular later on already have their later books to sell, and could probably release a new edition of their old work.
It's not a failure of the copyright system, it's just a reality that very few people can make a living off creative work.Ok. But that's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Literature and music? 10 years is nothing. Looking only for the next big thing is incredibly short-sighted and quite shallow.Isn't the whole point of copyright to try and make new stuff, though? I really don't understand what you're saying here. You don't think we should be encouraging the creation of new stuff because 10 years isn't a very long time?
The make some money over time. Some money over 50 years is much more than over just 10.For the vast majority of books that "some money" is gonna be less than a dollar a year. I'm going to go ahead and suggest that the societal benefit of making that book freely available outweighs the tiny trickle of cash that the creator may get over an extremely long period of time.
That is a failure of the education system and has nothing to do with copyright.If schools can't afford to get the textbooks due to the copyright on them, I'd say it's pretty related.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 10:06:05 am
Post by: palsch on July 02, 2013, 10:28:23 am
There are serious flaws, but the basic concept;
A work is registered prior to publication. Copyright goes from the date of registration for X years. After X years the copyright may be renewed for a period of Y five years. This renewal may be repeated N times.
To my eyes, an X of 10, Y of 5 and N of 12 make sense. You get 10 years instant copyright, enough for most works to be profitable and enjoy some element of the long tail. You have fairly frequent chances to choose to renew or allow it to lapse into the public domain. The total term possible is long enough to reflect current expectations and lifespans.
The flaws as I see them;
1) Registration is a burden on creators. Having an automatic initial period would be nice, but impractical when combined with renewals. Realistically registration would need to be as easy and accessible as possible, for any possible works.
2) Renewals are also a burden, but I see this as less important. The goal would be for any work not actively profitable (and so worth the effort) to lapse into the public domain. But even so the mechanisms should be as easy and accessible as possible.
3) Checking whether a work is copyrighted or not becomes far harder, as you need to check whether it's term has been renewed. Again, this is a burden that should be minimised as far as possible.
Honestly, I think that term length is the easy part of this debate compared to copyright enforcement. Unless there is a realistic copyright enforcement scheme that is both effective and non-disruptive to society them copyright will become largely defunct anyway. Right now we are headed in that direction and no matter what the terms on copyright are they simply won't matter.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 02, 2013, 10:32:41 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 02, 2013, 10:33:06 am
It appears LordBucket's argument is against any system ensuring that, not just against the current system. I think alot of people here are agreeing that the current system is either doing a poor job, or is just overkill.LordBucket isn't against ANY system insuring that, just against copyright, near as i can tell. And has been discussed several times, there are multiple other systems in use right now.
Personally, I am against any but an extremely limited kind of copyright. I think we do not, as a society, need to do actively encourage creation any longer in the artistic fields - the sheer preponderance of opportunity has resulted in an incredibly explosion of creation, and I would wager a guess that the amount of art created for free or from patronage systems today vastly overshadows the amount that was created thanks to the encouragement of copyright 200 years ago, per capita. And it's become obvious that copyright laws, even in the first several years, actively limit many types of creation.
I would support laws against plagiarism - but that's not copyright. That's attribution. I think there's still a strong benefit to such laws for promoting creation without also limiting it. But beyond that? I would be hard pressed to support the inherent monopolies created. I don't think copyright currently serves the purpose originally intended, and if it did so that would be an improvement... but I also don't think that the purpose originally intended is actually a purpose we need to actively pursue any longer.
Would this lead to the crash of the entertainment industry? Probably. But since it's an industry that has shown a willingness to pirate mercilessly from independents, pervert the political system, and use heavy handed methods of enforcement to insure a large enough pool of money for the executives (and not the artists, usually) to roll around - I'm perfectly fine with that. Let it die.
We'll adapt, people will spend their time doing other things, either looking at works freely distributed by hobbyists or by media created through a patronage system, or boosting other industries that provide entertainment without having to exert monopolies, and the world will be none the worse for it.
That's my opinion anyway.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 11:17:24 am
Time to suggest proactive registration and periodic renewal?Actually that is not as flawed as you think. Musicians have to register with agencys anyway if they want to profit from uses of their music. In Germany you can't even get a CD pressed if you don't register it with GEMA. (Though that system is a horrible clusterfuck where you have to pay if you want to get money for your music. Basically only very sucessful artists benefit from that, yet still it is more or less enforced.)
There are serious flaws, but the basic concept;
-snip-
Post by: palsch on July 02, 2013, 11:34:47 am
Actually that is not as flawed as you think. Musicians have to register with agencys anyway if they want to profit from uses of their music. In Germany you can't even get a CD pressed if you don't register it with GEMA. (Though that system is a horrible clusterfuck where you have to pay if you want to get money for your music. Basically only very sucessful artists benefit from that, yet still it is more or less enforced.)I do think it would work for mass market music like that (mostly because I feel most commercial profit from music is heading towards patronage models combined with agency models for long tail profits), and it's easy to implement for traditionally or electronically published books (having a required copyright code alongside or instead of an ISBN works and makes checks easy), but it gets harder on other art forms.
Take paintings or sculptures. Registration would be tricky and checking whether it's still covered would be harder still.
Or photography. If I take a series of snaps and publish them online today they are covered by copyright. I retain ownership and control over them. If I had to register each one, somehow, that's a substantial burden.
Or even just random rambling blog posts and other forms of writing that are covered by copyright today simply because they count as publications and so are automatically covered.
In these two cases I can imagine digital publishing platforms that automatically register materials uploaded, but that has huge potential for both exploitation and unwieldy nature. It's possible such a system could be designed to be manageable. I'm just not sure of it.
And I am generally a fan of that model, I just wanted to attack the idea to see if others can find arguments I've missed.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 11:59:11 am
The problem with checking status of non-digital things remains, but I guess there has to be a check for that even today, right? You can use old paintings and statues (or at least images of them) for commercial purposes I think, so there must be a checking system in place.
Post by: palsch on July 02, 2013, 12:29:42 pm
Yeah, it should at least in theory be possible to develop digital publishing platforms that would allow for something like that.It does exist but is pretty much a mess, largely because the modern scheme is designed to be simple.
The problem with checking status of non-digital things remains, but I guess there has to be a check for that even today, right? You can use old paintings and statues (or at least images of them) for commercial purposes I think, so there must be a checking system in place.
Currently there are only a few works that require such a check; those published between 1923 and 1977. These are works published when copyright registration and renewal existed, so they may have been registered and, for those published before 1963, have had their term renewed and still been under copyright when the law changed. If they were under copyright in 1978 then their term was extended to 95 years from publication and so they are still copyrighted.
For everything else it's just age. Anything published before 1923 is public domain. Everything else will become public domain either after 95 years or 70 years after the death of the creator.
This idea that you just look at the age of a work and see if it's public domain or not sounds far simple and arguably is, although the outcomes aren't that simple. (http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm) The general rule is that everything should be treated as under copyright unless you can prove that it isn't. Mostly because nothing new is being released (http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday) so it's generally true.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 02, 2013, 12:47:57 pm
This idea that you just look at the age of a work and see if it's public domain or not sounds far simple and arguably is, although the outcomes aren't that simple. (http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm) The general rule is that everything should be treated as under copyright unless you can prove that it isn't. Mostly because nothing new is being released (http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday) so it's generally true.Wow, I always thought that more stuff was in public domain in the US than in the EU. Maybe I was looking for translations or literary editions that remain copyrighted.
And taking stuff out of public domain...that's absurd.
Post by: palsch on July 02, 2013, 02:53:15 pm
And taking stuff out of public domain...that's absurd.In the specific case it wasn't quite as bad as made out, although the precedent is horrible.
Essentially the US signed an agreement that retroactively restored copyright to works still copyrighted in other countries. This was actually a condition of the Berne Convention some years before, but the USA (unlike all other signatories) had never accepted that the copyright restoration was retroactive and so had only recognised copyright on previously unqualified foreign works published after 1989. With the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (and later Supreme Court ruling upholding it) the retroactive recognition was extended to all works under copyright in their own country, within current American copyright terms. That took a whole set of works in the American public domain but that were copyrighted overseas and put them under American copyright protections.
The problem is the courts decision suggests there are no legal protections for the existence of the public domain in the US, and so future laws could go further in removing works from the public domain, although it does seem unlikely to happen.
Post by: Neonivek on July 02, 2013, 05:06:48 pm
Quote
My comment was neither "sardonic" nor was it mockery.
Sure it wasn't :P
Post by: Jimmy on July 02, 2013, 05:15:44 pm
Aside from the German ruling mentioned earlier, there's the case of Taiwan ruling that publishers copying Japanese porn and rereleasing it are not committing a crime, as it's not protected under copyright laws.
Pornography not protected as intellectual property: prosecutor (http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aall/201303210044.aspx) - March 21, Focus Taiwan News Channel
To my knowledge this issue is still being argued in court in the US. If it was resolved can anyone link the source?
FALA Asks Court to Dismiss Claim Porn Is Not Copyrightable (http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=152616) - Aug 24, 2012, XBIZ Newswire
Post by: alexandertnt on July 02, 2013, 09:13:47 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 02, 2013, 10:21:58 pm
The term "useful art" is somewhat concerning. I was not aware art had to have some utility to be copyrightable.
Well you hardly put a painting in a totally dark room or a videogame in a box do you?
Post by: Vector on July 02, 2013, 10:37:55 pm
Post by: alexandertnt on July 02, 2013, 10:40:24 pm
The term "useful art" is somewhat concerning. I was not aware art had to have some utility to be copyrightable.
Well you hardly put a painting in a totally dark room or a videogame in a box do you?
But the painting and the video game would still be art. One could also argue that the video game and painting still do not serve any useful function when they are accessable. Which brings me to my point, I was pointing out the use of the weasel word "useful", which on its own is quite vague and very open to interpretation.
Post by: Neonivek on July 03, 2013, 04:21:04 am
Post by: FearfulJesuit on July 03, 2013, 05:06:33 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 03, 2013, 05:10:51 am
Art doesn't have to be seen, it doesn't have to be useful. The only, and I mean the only, requirement for art is that it be interesting.
Then it is useful for inspiring interest.
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 05, 2013, 02:15:08 pm
Abstract:
A random sample of new books for sale on Amazon.com shows three times more books initially published in the 1850’s are for sale than new books from the 1950’s. Why? This paper presents new data on how copyright seems to make works disappear. First, a random sample of 2300 new books for sale on Amazon.com is analyzed along with a random sample of 2000 songs available on new DVD’s. Copyright status correlates highly with absence from the Amazon shelf. Together with publishing business models, copyright law seems to stifle distribution and access. On page 15, a newly updated version of a now well-known chart tells this story most vividly. Second, the availability on YouTube of songs that reached number one on the U.S., French, and Brazilian pop charts from 1930-60 is analyzed in terms of the identity of the uploader, type of upload, number of views, date of upload, and monetization status. An analysis of the data demonstrates that the DMCA safe harbor system as applied to YouTube helps maintain some level of access to old songs by allowing those possessing copies (primarily infringers) to communicate relatively costlessly with copyright owners to satisfy the market of potential listeners.
Post by: da_nang on July 06, 2013, 01:54:02 am
So, the "If Copyright Then More Creativity" theory doesn't hold, is "If Copyright Then More Money" theory all that's left?
Post by: Morrigi on July 06, 2013, 04:21:11 am
Post by: alexandertnt on July 06, 2013, 07:51:54 am
Pop music is too loud and all sounds the same (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/26/us-science-music-idUSBRE86P0R820120726?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=309301)
So, the "If Copyright Then More Creativity" theory doesn't hold, is "If Copyright Then More Money" theory all that's left?
Why doesn't the theory hold based on that article? Perhaps the "If current Copyright system Then more Creativity" theory doesnt hold. Or alternatively it may simply have nothing to do with copyright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290181
Whilst I do think copyright is required to some degree, I am not suprised that the current laws lead to this. Good luck getting anyone with legislative power to read this though.