Quote from: jadrax;567384Plenty of people make a lot of money of works that are not in copyright. If you want to make long-term money, you need to look at how people sell Shakespeare rather than how they sell Disney films.

Shakespeare is in the public domain.  I fully support living artists getting paid for their work, but the current system is falling apart as the big media companies attempt to keep their stranglehold on the supply chain.  Getting the artists behind a new scheme is not easy; there are plenty of musicians and authours who are happy to get a  "guaranteed" 10% royalty check (after paying back the advance) from a company that allegedly takes on the "risk" and promotes the work, rather than risk getting 80% (possibly more, possibly less) by self-publishing and doing the work for themselves.  

RPGs are even worse.  A print run of 5000 is a smashing success these days, but not even worth a second look by a regular book publisher.  While many authours are mired in the advance/royalty system, the hobby industry is a good deal more free to innovate, and I think it will pave the way for regular artists and writers to start pulling away from the studios and publishers to make money without a middleman that usually provides very little assistance for what they charge the artist.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;566878As a consumer, are you driven to purchase systems that freely offer their rules online?

For the past ten years or so, I've been traditionally approached about what this RPG-thing is about and proposed games from there. That's how I got my regular RL groups running. From that standpoint, I'm the one basically introducing the games to the people in my circle, so having the rules free is not really an issue, one way or the other, though being able to tell them "here, you can get the rules for yourself at this website and you're good to go" always helps, right?

Online, it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I have noticed it helps tremendously to be able to say "we're playing that game in play-by-posts/over Skype whatnot. You can get the rules there for free." (Cue the Ptolus AD&D game here with the OSRIC rules available for free online right there).

Quote from: StormBringer;567360It's been fairly obvious for a number of years that we need a new revenue model for most media; books, music, tv/movies.  What should that look like?

That's the real disruption of today's technology, I don't think there will be a single model, or even a few models. If there will be any common element it will be based off those people who can make products that attract an audience of consumers that can be cultivated. The "hows" from there could vary widely.

Quote from: JamesV;567436That's the real disruption of today's technology, I don't think there will be a single model, or even a few models. If there will be any common element it will be based off those people who can make products that attract an audience of consumers that can be cultivated. The "hows" from there could vary widely.

That's a good point.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;567382Without the protections of copyright law, it would actively be a bad idea to create new works (instead of simply pirating existing ones).

I've heard that argument before, but I don't think it's a clear cut as that. IMO, it's never been easier to have a shot at a living with or without copyright, because it's never been cheaper or easier to make and distribute just about anything. All you have to do from there is cultivate an audience and find out what they're willing to pay for, because there will always be something they're willing to pay for.

I'll admit that last statement is a little glib, but nowadays it's more than possible, and none of it has to do with worrying about what pirates are doing. Heck you do it right, and those pirates can become customers too.

Quote from: ptingler;567372Actually I do plan on releasing the gaming material I make under either OGL or CC license.

So I guess we'll file that under "any day now".

Quote from: ptingler;567372But I guess the fact I haven't currently published anything and that others have already done so under OGL and CC rights means that you are unable to rationally think that people do indeed invest their own money in such a way. I also see after showing you that the library does indeed freely give you legal possession of some items you still think that only my personal publication of documents means anything.

You appear to be responding to someone else, since what I said and what you are answering are completely unrelated.

At least be man enough to admit that piracy is wrong rather than coming up with ever more elaborate excuses for your behaviour. I particularly like the "human shield" approach you're taking with the libraries, thats classy. Note how I'm still not responding to your mp3 line, since obviously someone with so much to say about licences would understand the concept that libraries are licensed by some producers to do that. And this, of course, does not give you licence to do the same.

Quote from: StormBringer;567360It's been fairly obvious for a number of years that we need a new revenue model for most media; books, music, tv/movies.  What should that look like?

Patrons,  similiar to how art was produced prior to the institution of today's legal structure.  The difference being that it will be far more democratic and accessible than the old aristocratic system.

Why did aristocrats fund art? Because of prestige and because well they like what the guy produced and want more of it. These desires are not limited to humans that are of the upper class with the advent of the Internet and technology like print on demand everybody can participate. Which was not the case before.

In short people will give money to the artist to make stuff they like provided it is straightforward to do and there is a minimum amount of legal protection to ensure they will see something for their money.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;567382Piracy, OTOH, operates in a completely different fashion. It alleviates demand by increasing the number of extant copies. This directly undercuts the creator's ability to earn money by selling new copies.

This isn't a problem for Babies 'R Us because anyone selling baby clothes has to bear the same costs that Babies 'R Us does. But pirates don't: It costs time and/or money to create new work. The creators of that work have to pay those costs, but pirates don't. This gives the pirates an obvious and unfair advantage. Without the protections of copyright law, it would actively be a bad idea to create new works (instead of simply pirating existing ones).

Good points but the issues on copyrights on creative works has unique features that make the situation problematic to deal with.

Theft involves unlawfully deprieving someone of their possession. One reason it is a crime is because the person no longer has the use of the item.

An artist carves a statue of a man staring at an apple. It would be clearly theft to take that statue and sell it. You depriving that artist of his statue. Nobody would argue that is not a crime deserving of enforcement and punishment.

Now another individual see the statue. And is skilled enough to replicate it in every detail. When he does so is that theft?  The artist still has the original statue. The artist can still enjoy his statue or sell it as see fit. Should the copist be punished for using an IDEA? Because what happened is that the copyist took the idea of a particular man staring in a specific way at a particular apple and used it to recreate the original statue.

Therein lies the tension and the problem. As a free society do we want to be in the business of punishing people for using ideas? Fundamental to United States is the freedom of speech to express oneself freely without fear of oppression.

However it is desirable to get people to share both the practical and the beautiful. And as subsequent history shown even nessecary as billions are raised out of poverty thanks to the industrial and information revolutions.

These two worthy goals need to be balanced and I think the founding fathers of the United States had it right to include a limited time grant to the exclusive right to copy one's creative work in the constitution. That the old law for copyright where 27 years were granted plus 27 years on a explicit renewal more than adequately compensated artists for their efforts and still allowed work enter into the common heirtage of the people on a timely basis.

Quote from: estar;567486These two worthy goals need to be balanced and I think the founding fathers of the United States had it right to include a limited time grant to the exclusive right to copy one's creative work in the constitution. That the old law for copyright where 27 years were granted plus 27 years on a explicit renewal more than adequately compensated artists for their efforts and still allowed work enter into the common heirtage of the people on a timely basis.

Quite so.  I would even support something like a one-time 35 or 40 year copyright.  That should be more than adequate to reap the rewards.

Quote from: ptingler;567383What if someone downloads James Patterson reads it on their iPad and then deletes it after they've read it? Have they done anything different than the person who borrowed it from the library? Of course not, but you guys already knew that.

Unless there is some mechanism for it, there's no proof that it was deleted within the set time frame of the lending. Libraries historically track their lends, and fine borrowers for overtime and for the cost of the book. If the book isn't returned, the library has one less book to lend.

Quote from: estar;567486An artist carves a statue of a man staring at an apple. It would be clearly theft to take that statue and sell it. You depriving that artist of his statue. Nobody would argue that is not a crime deserving of enforcement and punishment.

Now another individual see the statue. And is skilled enough to replicate it in every detail. When he does so is that theft?  The artist still has the original statue. The artist can still enjoy his statue or sell it as see fit. Should the copist be punished for using an IDEA? Because what happened is that the copyist took the idea of a particular man staring in a specific way at a particular apple and used it to recreate the original statue.

"A man looking at an apple" is an idea, but what his is doing isn't copying an idea.

The exact duplication of the statue is counterfeiting, and that's been a crime in many countries for many years, with somewhat differing penalties depending on what is being copied and if there is any form of transaction involved.

A counterfeiter transacts copies, and that can lower the perceived value of the original goods (through poor quality, missing parts, etc), or it can lower the demand for the original goods (because people can acquire it instead of the original good).

Quote from: Lynn;567567"A man looking at an apple" is an idea, but what his is doing isn't copying an idea.

The exact duplication of the statue is counterfeiting, and that's been a crime in many countries for many years, with somewhat differing penalties depending on what is being copied and if there is any form of transaction involved.

A counterfeiter transacts copies, and that can lower the perceived value of the original goods (through poor quality, missing parts, etc), or it can lower the demand for the original goods (because people can acquire it instead of the original good).

All true, for counterfeiting, but I think that Estar was looking more at the intellectual property aspect of the copyright.

The artist makes a statue of a man looking at an apple, and another artist looks at statue and makes one very, very similar.  Artist A then sues Artist B for making something that appears very similar to his without his permission.

In another instance, if I were to go out and using my amazing (ly nonexistent) art skills, created an anime about intrepid heros fighting in transforming jets against giant green alien humanoids, I'm pretty sure that I'd be hearing from Bandai (or whoever owns the rights to Macross in the US this week) within a couple days with a cease and desist order at the very least, even if my storyline had nothing to do with the exact events of the original series and my mecha designs and artwork were noticeably different (especially since they would be pretty badly drawn stick figures...).

It's the interpretation that any similar core concept also becomes the property of the copyright holder that's leading to the creativity blight.  And with the primary licenses being snapped up by large corporate entities that have the money and interest to pursue lawsuits, there's less likely to be unchallenged development as time goes on.

Quote from: Lynn;567567"A man looking at an apple" is an idea, but what his is doing isn't copying an idea.

The form and details of a particular statue are still an idea, one that has more specific details than the general idea of a man looking at an apple.

Quote from: Lynn;567567The exact duplication of the statue is counterfeiting, and that's been a crime in many countries for many years, with somewhat differing penalties depending on what is being copied and if there is any form of transaction involved.

A counterfeiter transacts copies, and that can lower the perceived value of the original goods (through poor quality, missing parts, etc), or it can lower the demand for the original goods (because people can acquire it instead of the original good).

One of the elements of Counterfeiting is intent to deceive or confuse. Without that element there isn't a crime. It understandable to associate copyright violations with counterfeiting because under the current law the person doing the copying will try to conceal the fact it was a unauthorized reproduction or face criminal and civil penalties.

However a copyist artist can copy the original statue without deception. Making sure that it is publicly and obviously known that the statue was carved by copier along with the fact it is a duplicate of the another statue.

In this case by punishing the copyist, society is punishing the individual not for fraud but for expressing an idea. Something that western civilization has determined to be a fundamental right.

However the freedom of expression isn't absolute. One doesn't have the right to should "Fire!" in a crowded theater for example. There are legitimate reasons for society to curtail the fundamental freedom of expression that human beings enjoy.

In my opinion the freedom of expression is of far more importance as a right. However as I wrote before there are very good reasons for given people the exclusive privilege to copy the ideas they create. In the United States it is a privilege not a right. Granted by the people to promote progress in science and arts.

I feel that the current laws do not fulfill the goal of progress and needs to be changed. For copyright my opinion is that all that is needed is to limit the term to about two generations (50 years) with a renewal requirement halfway.

Quote from: estar;567581The form and details of a particular statue are still an idea, one that has more specific details than the general idea of a man looking at an apple.

The devil is in the details though. I can take the idea of Star Trek and create my own fiction based on a futuristic republic sending forth exploration ships to strange new worlds, with my own spin on it. I can't create a work called "Star Track", where Captain John Duke Ricard explores strange new worlds for the Confederation. If the originators feel it is close enough to their original work, I could then be sued and I'd probably lose. Personally I don't see a problem with that system.

Quote from: jadrax;567384Plenty of people make a lot of money of works that are not in copyright. If you want to make long-term money, you need to look at how people sell Shakespeare rather than how they sell Disney films.

Sir, I tip my virtual hat to you. You're right on the mark.