Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:38:23 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
Investement of resources said Estar, well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

Yeah so about that. You are not getting what I said, the investment of resources does not grant you any rights other than ownership of any physical objects that were created. However it is a good idea for society to allow people to seek a return on a investment of time and resources for a creative work to encourage more investment into making ideas and other creative works.  ​

I get you think you have a inherent right to monopolize the expression of the ideas you think of like a game. But I and others don't agree with that. But society is willing to allow you to have a monopoly to give you the incentive to create copies of game to be used or enjoyed by others. But you don't own anything other the property you created.

How magnanimous of you!

You're willing to allow me to benefit from my investment, creativiy and efort!?

WOW! Should I kiss your ass?

You're all wrong and you're so entitled and full of yourselves that you're making me think that IP should last forever.

Great work guys, keep on pushing your socialism and I'll convert into a Disney advocate!

You lot seem to think you have any inherent right to the creative works of others and not only that, those others benefgit from their works only thanks to your larguese...

But I'm the socialist says Pat... Fuck me, how can you lot be so entitled?

Quote from: Slambo on October 09, 2021, 12:54:28 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 10:05:54 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 09:54:08 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

It was a noble effort.

On the bright side, this thread has accumulated some good material for anyone who actually has the patience to read.

It's probably all wasted efforts. There don't seem to be many left on this board who are willing to engage with people with different opinions. It's all SOMEONE DISAGREED WITH ME! NO! I MUST ATTACK combined with attempts to misconstrue every sentence.

<insert it's all so tiresome meme>

If it makes you feel any better ive seen this argument play out dozens of times about ip but this is the first time ive actually got a good grasp of what the anti-IP people think and how they believe abolishing ip laws would work out. Its got me to think alot about what my future business nodel may be when i finally finish some stuff for publishing.

Thanks, though I think Oddend addressed that a lot more than I. I'm not even anti-, except in the technical sense that I don't like calling it property. I still believe some level of monopoly protection is worthwhile, after all. If you're interested a perspective that's more focused on fundamental rights than statism, the Mises Institute isn't bad start. While I'm not a libertarian or an an-cap, by coming at it from an economic perspective they do a good job of dissecting things like property rights instead of just being zealots chanting slogans.

Publishing seems to be a tough business these days. It's in the midst of probably the greatest change it's faced since the printing press, and it hasn't settled out yet. A lot of traditional wisdom is out the door, and a lot of prognosticators are selling snake oil.

Speaking as an author, "life of the author" for copyright seems completely sensible to me. It's my work, I own it as long as I'm alive.

Now, that still leaves a question of the length of copyright for work-for-hire or if you sell your rights to someone else (or to a corporation). In that case, I'd say maybe 25 years; and that would be a term that would be transferrable if it was sold again, but the count doesn't start over.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 09, 2021, 01:23:44 AM
WOW! Should I kiss your ass?

Yes because you asking me to curtail use of my property (printers, ink, etc.) and curtail my right to freedom of speech and expression in order to compensate you for your creativity. In the exchange you gain a monopoly when it comes to making copies of your creative works and the rest of us gain something useful or entertaining.

As I said before if a days comes where society can gain something useful and/or entertaining without having to grant monopoly then I would be glad to get to rid of them.

Finally it is rare that a truly unique work is made by a creative. One that seemly appears to spring out of the blue with little to no precedent in the work before. The vast majority of creative works are a hybrid of what came melded with a few original ideas. Much of the game that you use in your examples is a result of dipping into humanity common heritage. Morally once you done that, you are obligated to the same. For example sections of my Majestic Fantasy RPG is inspired by Tolkien creativity. Elisabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion, Feist's Midkemia series, Howard's Conan; all mixed up with my own original ideas. The Majestic RPG wouldn't work without those ideas despite presence of my original work.  The same is likely true with any  game you came up. Especially if it not something abstract like Chess, Jenga, or Go but tied to some type of background or setting.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 03:09:04 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 08, 2021, 03:04:14 PM
I'm sorry, what?

You literally just advocated for the person running the Trove to be sentenced to 'federal pound him in the ass prison' and now you're trying to say it doesn't do anything?

Maybe make up your mind, brah.

No, that was this guy:

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:41:11 PM
"federal pound him in the ass prison"

I apologize. Damn nested quotes.

Quote from: estar on October 09, 2021, 11:20:30 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 09, 2021, 01:23:44 AM
WOW! Should I kiss your ass?

Yes because you asking me to curtail use of my property (printers, ink, etc.) and curtail my right to freedom of speech and expression in order to compensate you for your creativity. In the exchange you gain a monopoly when it comes to making copies of your creative works and the rest of us gain something useful or entertaining.

As I said before if a days comes where society can gain something useful and/or entertaining without having to grant monopoly then I would be glad to get to rid of them.

Finally it is rare that a truly unique work is made by a creative. One that seemly appears to spring out of the blue with little to no precedent in the work before. The vast majority of creative works are a hybrid of what came melded with a few original ideas. Much of the game that you use in your examples is a result of dipping into humanity common heritage. Morally once you done that, you are obligated to the same. For example sections of my Majestic Fantasy RPG is inspired by Tolkien creativity. Elisabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion, Feist's Midkemia series, Howard's Conan; all mixed up with my own original ideas. The Majestic RPG wouldn't work without those ideas despite presence of my original work.  The same is likely true with any  game you came up. Especially if it not something abstract like Chess, Jenga, or Go but tied to some type of background or setting.

Right, not allowing you to steal from me is curtailing your free expresion and the lawful use of your equipment...

You're just a bunch of entitled brats.

You have zero right to take my stuff without paying me. And your "It's an IDEA man!" is just a lie.

The IDEA is to make a game, the finished game is a product that required me investing MY resources in it's development, you can cry to the high heavens about it the fact remains you just want to profit from MY investment (time, effort, creativy and money) without my permision and without paying me.

And like the SJWs you redefine stuff to hide behind a semantic argument to justify your position and to steal my stuff.

Kiss my hairy latino ass.

Edited to add:

And now you use the "You didn't built that!" argument. Yes I did, you have access to the exact same set of prior stuff as I. And yet of all 7 billion people in the planet only I came with what I wrote.

All your arguments sound like entitled socialist to me.

Quote from: Slambo on October 09, 2021, 12:54:28 AM

If it makes you feel any better ive seen this argument play out dozens of times about ip but this is the first time ive actually got a good grasp of what the anti-IP people think and how they believe abolishing ip laws would work out. Its got me to think alot about what my future business nodel may be when i finally finish some stuff for publishing.

Agreed, good thread.

And I suggest care when using the word "abolish". I get the sense that lots of people hear that word and think: "everyone who opposes this thing wants it removed from the status quo." Some folks like Oddend might fall into that category, but it's not necessarily true.

If I'm opposed to keeping dogs as pets in a city, that doesn't necessarily mean I advocate that everyone immediately release their dogs on the streets. More likely, I would focus on stopping adoption in the first place.

Personally, I agree with Estar that we benefit as a society by motivating creativity with financial reward, but I don't think focusing on refining IP law is the best route to get there. On paper we can iron out some compelling details, no doubt. But in the courts, all laws ultimately benefit the rich and powerful corporation over the individual creator.

Rather, I think a return to the patronage model is the best bet for our social-creative future. Kickstarter et al already have amazing momentum; I suggest focusing on expanding and perfecting that model as a solution.

If you make a free product that is used by -- and becomes integral to -- the functioning of a large company, that company will become a patron as well. This is what happened to software. Note that software developers created this environment by giving everything away for free from the start (led by the likes of Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond, if you're looking for some reading). How this might apply to games is worth some contemplation.

Subscription is also a form of patronage we can continue to use, which might fit some creative output flows better.

Quote from: Zalman on October 09, 2021, 11:44:15 AM
Subscription is also a form of patronage we can continue to use, which might fit some creative output flows better.

Except these days if you stop paying the subscription you don't get to keep all the programs and movies you watched while paying Netflix or Disney+. Microsoft wants you pay a subscription for their Office software and if you don't pay all your documents become inaccessible.

Patronage worked in the olden days because all performances were local and every book and muscial arrangement was hand copied. If you didn't keep current on paying the talent, you couldn't keep listening to the music or hear the actors perform the play or a poet recite his works... and if you wanted to copy someone's writing you had to pay someone to copy it.

How does patronage work when, once you've painted the Last Supper for one patron or performed your latest hit song, another who likes your work just clicks "save as" on the screen instead of hiring you (or at least someone of comparable skill) to repeat the performance?

There's a reason patronage fell out of practice and why the modern systems like "Patreon" only resemble it if you squint.* The modern subscription and Patreon-like systems only work because of IP laws that keep you from just being to walk off with and redistribute the producer's entire library that you copied during your free trial.

Patronage without IP protection isn't the easy panacea for supporting creative content some think it is.

* And that one of the ways it DOES resemble it isn't exactly awesome... screw artistic integrity, the sponsor wants you to include them and their families in the work as some saint or other beloved figure... "this video brought to you by 'WorldAnvil' or 'NordVPN' which I will shill for about a third of the content's length using some tenuous connection to the topic you actually care about."

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 09, 2021, 01:44:10 PM

Quote from: Zalman on October 09, 2021, 11:44:15 AM
Subscription is also a form of patronage we can continue to use, which might fit some creative output flows better.

Except these days if you stop paying the subscription you don't get to keep all the programs and movies you watched while paying Netflix or Disney+. Microsoft wants you pay a subscription for their Office software and if you don't pay all your documents become inaccessible.

Patronage worked in the olden days because all performances were local and every book and muscial arrangement was hand copied. If you didn't keep current on paying the talent, you couldn't keep listening to the music or hear the actors perform the play or a poet recite his works... and if you wanted to copy someone's writing you had to pay someone to copy it.

How does patronage work when, once you've painted the Last Supper for one patron or performed your latest hit song, another who likes your work just clicks "save as" on the screen instead of hiring you (or at least someone of comparable skill) to repeat the performance?

There's a reason patronage fell out of practice and why the modern systems like "Patreon" only resemble it if you squint.* The modern subscription and Patreon-like systems only work because of IP laws that keep you from just being to walk off with and redistribute the producer's entire library that you copied during your free trial.

Patronage without IP protection isn't the easy panacea for supporting creative content some think it is.

* And that one of the ways it DOES resemble it isn't exactly awesome... screw artistic integrity, the sponsor wants you to include them and their families in the work as some saint or other beloved figure... "this video brought to you by 'WorldAnvil' or 'NordVPN' which I will shill for about a third of the content's length using some tenuous connection to the topic you actually care about."

None of that matters to the entitled people that feel they have the right to freely access AND profit from your creativity.

After interacting with them I'm now in favor of 100 years at least or forever. Because no one is entitled to access/profit from my investment without me getting paid.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 09, 2021, 01:44:10 PM
The modern subscription and Patreon-like systems only work because of IP laws that keep you from just being to walk off with and redistribute the producer's entire library that you copied during your free trial.

Not only is there no evidence for this common talking point; it's demonstrably false. We already have successful creators on services like Patreon who publish their work directly into the public domain. Here's the search results for "open source", just on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/search?q=open+source

David Revoy, in particular, is an illustrator who makes over $3000 (just on Patreon) per issue of his Pepper & Carrot comic. He also has other revenue streams, like selling hardbacks on DriveThruComics.

How is that people like Revoy are successful despite not only allowing but encouraging other people to take their work and use it for commercial purposes? It's not because he's somehow unknown to the world. His illustrations were recently used in a series of successful commercial products (which he didn't make) on DTRPG.

Especially notable in Revoy's case is that we've been assured throughout this thread that, in a world without IP, Disney would just "steal" every successful idea and make millions without crediting the author. Well, I can't think of a "property" any more tailor-made for a Disney adaptation than Revoy's Pepper & Carrot. Just look at the art style. It stars a female protagonist witch and her cat. It's just begging to be a 3D animated film. Why hasn't Disney "stolen" it and (somehow) put Revoy in the bread line? It's just sitting there, explicitly without protection by IP law.

Disney also has the whole Blender Foundation series of Open Movies at their disposal: https://www.blender.org/about/studio/

Yet again, just sitting there, ripe for the completely legal taking by Disney or any other studio. But for some reason, in the nearly 20 years these films have been getting made and released (along with all their source assets), not a single big studio has used them as a starting point for their own movie. The director of one (Sintel) even got a job at Pixar. There's no arguing that his hiring manager and coworkers weren't made aware of the Blender open movies. And yet: nothing.

In the RPG sphere, the recent DTRPG best-sellers Sword of Cepheus and Cepheus Deluxe are completely open content, aside from introductory text and illustrations. SoC has been out for a while. CD was on the front page "hottest titles" list for weeks, and it's still at the top of "hottest small press". Where are the all the copycats that are supposed to spring up, swap out the art, undercut them, and take all the profits?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 09, 2021, 11:25:32 AM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 03:09:04 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 08, 2021, 03:04:14 PM
I'm sorry, what?

You literally just advocated for the person running the Trove to be sentenced to 'federal pound him in the ass prison' and now you're trying to say it doesn't do anything?

Maybe make up your mind, brah.

No, that was this guy:

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:41:11 PM
"federal pound him in the ass prison"

I apologize. Damn nested quotes.

I wasn't part of that conversation at all, but props for apologizing.

Quote from: Oddend on October 09, 2021, 02:46:13 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 09, 2021, 01:44:10 PM
The modern subscription and Patreon-like systems only work because of IP laws that keep you from just being to walk off with and redistribute the producer's entire library that you copied during your free trial.

Not only is there no evidence for this common talking point; it's demonstrably false. We already have successful creators on services like Patreon who publish their work directly into the public domain. Here's the search results for "open source", just on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/search?q=open+source

David Revoy, in particular, is an illustrator who makes over $3000 (just on Patreon) per issue of his Pepper & Carrot comic. He also has other revenue streams, like selling hardbacks on DriveThruComics.

How is that people like Revoy are successful despite not only allowing but encouraging other people to take their work and use it for commercial purposes? It's not because he's somehow unknown to the world. His illustrations were recently used in a series of successful commercial products (which he didn't make) on DTRPG.

Especially notable in Revoy's case is that we've been assured throughout this thread that, in a world without IP, Disney would just "steal" every successful idea and make millions without crediting the author. Well, I can't think of a "property" any more tailor-made for a Disney adaptation than Revoy's Pepper & Carrot. Just look at the art style. It stars a female protagonist witch and her cat. It's just begging to be a 3D animated film. Why hasn't Disney "stolen" it and (somehow) put Revoy in the bread line? It's just sitting there, explicitly without protection by IP law.

Disney also has the whole Blender Foundation series of Open Movies at their disposal: https://www.blender.org/about/studio/

Yet again, just sitting there, ripe for the completely legal taking by Disney or any other studio. But for some reason, in the nearly 20 years these films have been getting made and released (along with all their source assets), not a single big studio has used them as a starting point for their own movie. The director of one (Sintel) even got a job at Pixar. There's no arguing that his hiring manager and coworkers weren't made aware of the Blender open movies. And yet: nothing.

In the RPG sphere, the recent DTRPG best-sellers Sword of Cepheus and Cepheus Deluxe are completely open content, aside from introductory text and illustrations. SoC has been out for a while. CD was on the front page "hottest titles" list for weeks, and it's still at the top of "hottest small press". Where are the all the copycats that are supposed to spring up, swap out the art, undercut them, and take all the profits?

Yep. Reminds me a lot of people who argue that getting rid of the police will immediately result in Mad Max anarchy. Most people are decent, and even without badges and guns, will continue acting fairly with their neighbors.

You see this all the time in crowdfunding. Almost 10 years ago, Amanda Palmer was the first musician to raise more than $1 million in a Kickstarter, and she released the album for free. The people who supported her did so because they wanted to support her, not because it was required to gain access to her music. The same is true with a lot of retroclones, which have a no art version released for free, and people still pay for the full package. Eclipse Phase released all their books under the Creative Commons license, including all the art, seeded the torrents themselves, and and people still buy their PDFs on DTRPG. You mentioned Patreon, but in addition just look at how many podcasts or YouTube channels get money for each episode, even though all the episodes are really on a public site. Look at the leaderboard for Humble Bundle, and how many people throw in a lot of money on top of the minimum needed to get the books (or games; I suppose a few people use HB for vidya games). Or for another random example, the tips while live streaming on YouTube.

The publishing model has changed, and it's moved away from a simple transactional exchange of money for a product. It's more about relationships and communities. People throw money at products they like and people they like, because they enjoy knowing they're helping to support them, and also because they like feeling engaged, and being part of something. This can work very well, but it can be tough on those who tend to be shy or reserved, because it requires a public persona and continual engagement. Which is neither good or bad; it's just how it is.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 09, 2021, 02:23:38 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 09, 2021, 01:44:10 PM

Quote from: Zalman on October 09, 2021, 11:44:15 AM
Subscription is also a form of patronage we can continue to use, which might fit some creative output flows better.

Except these days if you stop paying the subscription you don't get to keep all the programs and movies you watched while paying Netflix or Disney+. Microsoft wants you pay a subscription for their Office software and if you don't pay all your documents become inaccessible.

Patronage worked in the olden days because all performances were local and every book and muscial arrangement was hand copied. If you didn't keep current on paying the talent, you couldn't keep listening to the music or hear the actors perform the play or a poet recite his works... and if you wanted to copy someone's writing you had to pay someone to copy it.

How does patronage work when, once you've painted the Last Supper for one patron or performed your latest hit song, another who likes your work just clicks "save as" on the screen instead of hiring you (or at least someone of comparable skill) to repeat the performance?

There's a reason patronage fell out of practice and why the modern systems like "Patreon" only resemble it if you squint.* The modern subscription and Patreon-like systems only work because of IP laws that keep you from just being to walk off with and redistribute the producer's entire library that you copied during your free trial.

Patronage without IP protection isn't the easy panacea for supporting creative content some think it is.

* And that one of the ways it DOES resemble it isn't exactly awesome... screw artistic integrity, the sponsor wants you to include them and their families in the work as some saint or other beloved figure... "this video brought to you by 'WorldAnvil' or 'NordVPN' which I will shill for about a third of the content's length using some tenuous connection to the topic you actually care about."

None of that matters to the entitled people that feel they have the right to freely access AND profit from your creativity.

After interacting with them I'm now in favor of 100 years at least or forever. Because no one is entitled to access/profit from my investment without me getting paid.

Investment?  Creativity?  What are you talking about?  Neither your time, thoughts, nor undefined "resources" have any value whatsoever, unless someone is willing to pay you for them.  If you write poetry in your basement, no matter how many years you take, no matter how much ink you spill, the non-physical product of that is valueless, unless someone wants to pay you for it.  Do you think every poet deserves to get paid for whatever they scribble down, regardless of anyone else wanting it?  You are dangerously close to "universal basic income" territory, where we are expected to pay people to sit around and make art with their boogers.  So let's just start with basic economics:

What is "value" and where does it come from?  Do all individual objects have some platonic, unalterable value, regardless of circumstance?  Does a person's "labor," regardless of what is produced, have an intrinsic value?

Quote from: Pat on October 09, 2021, 03:09:40 PM
Eclipse Phase released all their books under the Creative Commons license, including all the art, seeded the torrents themselves, and and people still buy their PDFs on DTRPG.

Thank you for reminding me: One of my favorite movies, Ink, was doomed to commercial failure until it was put on the Pirate Bay in 2009 (as soon as the DVDs were put on sale). Keep in mind, this is waaaay before the Kickstarter/Patreon phenomenon was a thing.

• Indie Movie Explodes on BitTorrent, Makers Bless Piracy
• Indie Film Ink Pirated, Filmmakers Pleased

I learned of the movie through Netflix, back around 2012, where it was consistently in the top recommendations. Thanks to Ink being "pirated", the director was able to make a much bigger production in 2014 ("The Frame"). I bought both movies on GOG.com when that came out. The Frame wasn't nearly as solid, but it's probably worth a watch for Terry Gilliam fans.

Of course, the quality of the work has nothing to do with the way that its production history demolishes the typical nightmare-future arguments against information-sharing.

Quote from: RPGPundit on October 09, 2021, 06:15:41 AMNow, that still leaves a question of the length of copyright for work-for-hire or if you sell your rights to someone else (or to a corporation). In that case, I'd say maybe 25 years; and that would be a term that would be transferrable if it was sold again, but the count doesn't start over.

How is that even supposed to work? If you have a big, corporate RPG that has multiple rules authors, another author for flavor text, and half a dozen artists, how is the copywrite supposed to be split up after 25 years?