Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;952134I'd argue that a strong intellectual property system is at the heart of how much people innovate.

Well, it's a simple fact that entire purpose of those systems was to promote innovation, and for quite a while they did a pretty good job of it. I certainly believe that a sane patent system could continue to promote innovation, as long as it isn't allowed to be crippled by patent trolls and ridiculous, abstract concepts.

I don't believe that copyright as it currently exists today is doing the job it was intended to. It allows some companies to make money pursuing legal claims against copyright infringers, and it offers some protection against large scale, commercial infringement (although a big company can still infringe against the little guy without any real fear of repercussion).

How we continue to promote innovation and the creation of artistic works is an important question. Some options include:

* Patreon and similar schemes that allow for ongoing support.
* Kickstarter and similar schemes that allow for an initial cash investment and confidence that a sensible business plan will allow for all initial costs to be covered and profit to be made.
* The simple ability of creators to make their works easily available to the public, and to make it easy for the public to pay them directly for it, rather than requiring them to negotiate one-sided deals with agents/publishers/labels.
* Educate people to ensure they understand that content creators need support in order to continue creating.
* A basic income system would allow someone who wants to create to create, without worrying about their financial situation (that's clearly not a solution that can be implemented now, but may be the best solution long-term, IMO).

I don't have the answer, but if we're talking about practical realities, the fact is that trying to enforce copyright law against private citizens engaged in infringement for private use does nothing to help content creators.

What a lot of people continue to ignore is that IP Law is not based on inherent moral rights. It's a set of artificial restrictions designed, as many have pointed out, to encourage innovation and content creation. When the system starts to fail, the correct response isn't to immediately defend the system on rigid moral grounds. We need to go back to first principles and ask, "Under the current realities, how do we continue to encourage innovation?"

I agree that the intellectual property system isn't perfect.  But... it's government.  And government screws up everything.  And frankly - it's not as convoluted as some other things they do.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;952300* A basic income system would allow someone who wants to create to create, without worrying about their financial situation (that's clearly not a solution that can be implemented now, but may be the best solution long-term, IMO).

And here we're going to come to a fierce disagreement.

I knew quite a few people in their teens and early twenties who would have sat on their butts all day if this were around.  Many of them picked themselves up as they aged and are now have decent jobs etc.  But no one would give their resume a second look if it said "age 18-26: sat on butt and played video games" - and they would have been stuck there forever.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;952303And here we're going to come to a fierce disagreement.

I knew quite a few people in their teens and early twenties who would have sat on their butts all day if this were around.  Many of them picked themselves up as they aged and are now have decent jobs etc.  But no one would give their resume a second look if it said "age 18-26: sat on butt and played video games" - and they would have been stuck there forever.

I'm aware that there will be some extremely passionate opposition to the concept, especially on this site.

so... I'd rather not make a new thread for this, since it's related to the topic, but I have a very specific scenario in mind:

Let's say, a foreign (non English speaking, for the purposes of this example) game has been out of print for almost 20 years, and the company that produced the game is gone, and some of the copyright holders have expressed a strong desire never to let the game be reprinted or remade (as in, into a second edition) ever again, and have put a stop to all attempts at doing so.

In addition, while the main book, and two supplements, were translated to English, the vast majority of the other books were not.

In this instance, how would you view providing translations of those books, given they were never released, and currently have no real hope of ever being released in English?

The "basic income system" may need to become a reality whether we like it or not. On one hand, we have AI / robotics / automation and on the other hand, we have more babies being born every minute and people living longer. People need to eat, but there might not be work for the people to do. But let's be honest and just call "basic income system" what it is - permanent welfare and living in poverty. Surely that's not going to cause any problems.

As for PDFs, there is so much free stuff. I can't keep up with the DriveThruRPG freebies that I download. I have gigs of unread PDFs. But let's be honest and realize "digital piracy" isn't going away, and those people would never have been customers in the first place.

I also highly suspect the pirates have gigs of "stolen" PDFs, equally unread on their drives.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1035095In this instance, how would you view providing translations of those books, given they were never released, and currently have no real hope of ever being released in English?

Are you selling the translations?

If not, the IP holders don't have any damages so the situation is moot.

Of course, if the original game was any good, the BEST path forward is to retroclone it.

Quote from: Tod13;952167My favorites are the socialists who still want my money for their products. LOL :rolleyes:

"He who would eat, must work." -- Karl Marx.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1035132Are you selling the translations?

If not, the IP holders don't have any damages so the situation is moot.

Of course, if the original game was any good, the BEST path forward is to retroclone it.

No, I would not be selling them, spreading the popularity of an old long discontinued game that I really like is more important to me than any petty profit I could make from selling it.

The reason it hasn't been cloned is likely because while the system itself is fine, the biggest draw is the setting, and the way the mechanics if the game represent that setting. Also, the game is French, and French copyright is really screwy, so it's possible the game's mechanics are also covered under the copyright in some way.

I do know that the Fan Made E-zine that still produces and sells content for this game to this day (also all in French) is apparently legal, so it's hard to say for sure.

Quote from: rgrove0172;945295Has anyone else found these little treasure troves? Do you make use of them? Do you share them with your group or even post links for interested forum buddies?

I have a ton of PDFs from TSR from back when they had them on the Wizards website for free.

I did my phd on moral rights in copyright and have thought about this probably way too much.

I guess my feeling is that if a work is within 14 years of publication, the original Statute of Anne term, or 28 years and in print, then morality argues in favour of not using unauthorised uploads. Exception where you have purchased an authorised copy and want to make use of an e copy - eg I bought hardcopies of the 3e Wilderlands materials, I don't think that morally I should have to pay another large sum for electronic access.

The main thing is that authors deserve a reward for their labours. They don't need or deserve a permanent monopoly.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;952300I don't have the answer, but if we're talking about practical realities, the fact is that trying to enforce copyright law against private citizens engaged in infringement for private use does nothing to help content creators.

Weaknesses in how 'safe harbor' works for network providers is at the heart of it.

You cannot squeeze money out of people who don't really have it, but you can remove the easiest profits at the distribution level.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;952300What a lot of people continue to ignore is that IP Law is not based on inherent moral rights. It's a set of artificial restrictions designed, as many have pointed out, to encourage innovation and content creation. When the system starts to fail, the correct response isn't to immediately defend the system on rigid moral grounds. We need to go back to first principles and ask, "Under the current realities, how do we continue to encourage innovation?"

The inherent moral rights regarding 'theft' aren't being extended to intellectual property, which more and more is the only unique value proposition when manufacturing and logistics are easily moved to the lowest cost location in the world. It isn't a new problem, especially when other governments don't view it is a crime (and among those, the ones with lots of manpower but few valuable IP owners) - it is an explosive expansion on 'counterfeit goods'.

But here's the price for that. It is the rental style subscription model. Companies are moving to this model and we are seeing the disappearance of old style 'here's your EULA, enjoy, we'll tell you how much the next upgrade cost is when it arrives', and replaced with 'rent our software, but the moment you stop paying, you cannot access it anymore'. And give that a few more years and then you'll find digital downloads of content will become rental only as well.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1035095In this instance, how would you view providing translations of those books, given they were never released, and currently have no real hope of ever being released in English?

1) You can't without exposing yourself legally.

2) As a society we need to come to a consensus about abandoned works. In the United States the point of copyright is to promote the creation and sharing of creative works. The United State never recognized a inherent right to profit or control creative works except by laws passed by Congress.

Prior to the 70s it was a non-issue as the 26 year term renewable to 52 years wasn't long enough to prevent most works from getting into the public domain where interested parties can preserve them or make them available again on their own initiative. But now that the copyright term is now so long and  technological changes that made some of the medium by which works are shared short-lived it now in a crisis. That various works have been forever lost. Which in the United States is completely contrary to why we have copyright in the first place.

For example look up Jazz recordings from the late 20s and 30s.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1035132Are you selling the translations?

If not, the IP holders don't have any damages so the situation is moot.

Of course, if the original game was any good, the BEST path forward is to retroclone it.

See a lawyer. Why? Because copyright violations can be handled criminally as well as civilly. In general if I copy a page out of a book and hand it out to three people. The dollar amount that can be recovered, or be used as a basis for a criminal charge is effectively zero. However repeated violations can add up along with other legal nuances which makes this extremely bad advice without consulting a IP attorney.

Quote from: S'mon;1035222The main thing is that authors deserve a reward for their labours. They don't need or deserve a permanent monopoly.

Victor Hugo disagrees. He was a bit of an asshole about his works. In part we can blame our present situation on his advocacy.

Quote from: estar;1035236Victor Hugo disagrees. He was a bit of an asshole about his works. In part we can blame our present situation on his advocacy.

Him and the rest of those cheese eating droit d'auteur monkeys!