Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 11:29:06 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 12, 2021, 11:19:15 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Okay, but this comes off more like "I don't like the Mouse so I want their stuff" than anything else.

Only if you completely ignore everything I say and replace it entirely with your own words.

Oh, I listened to what you said... and I know you and Oddend think you're arguing for one thing, but all you've convinced me of is that "transferable and renewable until the current rights holder stops filing periodic notices for renewal (basically just like trademarks)" is the most fair option and the option that will encourage the most creativity amongst others to produce their own original works since they can't just piggyback off others' achievements (at least not without paying for the privilege).

Again I ask... if Superman and Mickey Mouse became public domain tomorrow, in what way would superhero and children's animated stories be improved?

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 12, 2021, 11:45:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 11:29:06 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 12, 2021, 11:19:15 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Okay, but this comes off more like "I don't like the Mouse so I want their stuff" than anything else.

Only if you completely ignore everything I say and replace it entirely with your own words.

Oh, I listened to what you said... and I know you and Oddend think you're arguing for one thing, but all you've convinced me of is that "transferable and renewable until the current rights holder stops filing periodic notices for renewal (basically just like trademarks)" is the most fair option and the option that will encourage the most creativity amongst others to produce their own original works since they can't just piggyback off others' achievements (at least not without paying for the privilege).

Again I ask... if Superman and Mickey Mouse became public domain tomorrow, in what way would superhero and children's animated stories be improved?

Oddend and I have significant differences in what we're arguing.

You're making a positive assertion, that perpetual renewal of some unspecified intellectual protection will encourage the most creativity, and that is somehow "fair". But you haven't explained why you think that's the most optimal outcome, or explained how it's fair, except for one negative (expressing disdain for piggybacking). You can draw whatever conclusions you want and don't have to justify them to me, but if you want a discussion there's nothing there for me to address. I've expressed my views, and I'm not sure what yours are.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 12, 2021, 11:19:15 AM
I mean, let's say Superman or Iron Man becomes public domain... are you telling me that the quality of superhero themed stories would suddenly improve?

Does being able to claim your outlaw protagonist who robs from the elites is Robin Hood instead of, say, Jack Knave (one of my characters), really make your story any better?

No, all those IPs really do is act as free advertising because those names are more familiar.

I do think that things would be better. Characters like Odysseus, Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, and Superman are part of the cultural consciousness. By using and reusing them, we add to and participate in common culture. These characters grow and become more interesting by being re-interpreted and re-imagined, and the stories are richer because of it. That's the nature of myth.

To bring this back to gaming -- I'm going to suggest that the OSR has been good for gaming. Let's suppose that the OGL had never been created and WotC had behaved like others and kept all of their content proprietary. I think that gaming would be worse for it. On the one hand, people have always been able to make D&D look-alikes like The Arcanum and so forth. But without being able to pull from D&D, I don't think there would be an OGL at all, and to the extent that there was - it would be more like the various D&D-look-alike games of the 1990s.

I'll suggest that games today would be better if game designers could pull from any of the games of the 1980s. Being able to build on top of this past content would let designers focus more on what makes their new game design unique and interesting.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 11:17:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 11:08:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Yes or no. Does he have the right to profit from it?

I answered your question in the text you quoted.

So it's a privilege to be allowed to profit off your work.

Wow.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 11:17:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 11:08:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Yes or no. Does he have the right to profit from it?

I answered your question in the text you quoted.

So it's a privilege to be allowed to profit off your work.

Wow.

Not at all what I said.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 01:30:48 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 11:17:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 11:08:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Yes or no. Does he have the right to profit from it?

I answered your question in the text you quoted.

So it's a privilege to be allowed to profit off your work.

Wow.

Not at all what I said.

"There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege."

And that's why I told you to answer simply, yes or no.

What you want is to have some vague non-answer, that you can dance around with. And I'm not having it.

So, one more time: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP have a right to profit from it? Yes or no?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:35:11 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 01:30:48 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 11:17:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 11:08:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Yes or no. Does he have the right to profit from it?

I answered your question in the text you quoted.

So it's a privilege to be allowed to profit off your work.

Wow.

Not at all what I said.

"There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege."

And that's why I told you to answer simply, yes or no.

What you want is to have some vague non-answer, that you can dance around with. And I'm not having it.

So, one more time: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP have a right to profit from it? Yes or no?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Have you?

I want a simple answer, yes or no.

One more time: Have you stopped beating your wife, Ghostmaker?

If you reject the fundamental assumptions behind a question, you can't answer it with a simple yes or no. Pretending you can makes you a wife beater, just because I asked you a question.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

This is technically a correct answer (on rights).   However bear in mind the use of "Right" in the following U.S. Constitutional context:
"Congress shall have 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..."
"exclusive Right" has a different meaning than "rights".  Perhaps this is what y'all are arguing about.  The "exclusive Right" is granted by Congress... it is a grant of monopoly or a privilege.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:27:43 PM
So it's a privilege to be allowed to profit off your work.

To be clear the lack of copyright protection doesn't prevent you from profiting off of your work. I made money on Blackmarsh even though the entire content of the products is freely available here.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/blackmarsh_srd.zip

What being granted is the limited privilege (see first sale doctrine) allowing you to tell what other people what they can and can't do with your work and what they can and can't do with their own property (printers, scanners, photocopiers).

There are dozens of companies who profited off of making nice editions of the Iliad or the Odyssey.

Or to take a more recent example Andy Weir made a lot of money off of the Martian despite it being freely available in it's original form when it was first posted for sale on Amazon. He self-published using one of the Amazon programs. It is my understanding that many of the people who read his original version went out and bought it from Amazon to support him.

It only was taken down when he signed a formal publishing deal. Which meant a company had to invest time and resources into making a print run and then distributing it to store. He made more money afterwards because it was more widely available not because he took down his free available version.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:35:11 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 01:30:48 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 11:17:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 11:08:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Yes or no. Does he have the right to profit from it?

I answered your question in the text you quoted.

So it's a privilege to be allowed to profit off your work.

Wow.

Not at all what I said.

"There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege."

And that's why I told you to answer simply, yes or no.

What you want is to have some vague non-answer, that you can dance around with. And I'm not having it.

So, one more time: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP have a right to profit from it? Yes or no?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Have you?

I want a simple answer, yes or no.

One more time: Have you stopped beating your wife, Ghostmaker?

If you reject the fundamental assumptions behind a question, you can't answer it with a simple yes or no. Pretending you can makes you a wife beater, just because I asked you a question.

Blocked and reported.

I'm glad you think the proper response to someone wanting an answer to a pertinent question is to crack wise about spousal abuse.

Now go do a flip, you worthless fucktard.

Even if not a property, there can be intellectual products.

Saying its a privilege to profit off them is like saying its a privilege an armed guy with goons can't force you off your house.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 02:04:09 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:35:11 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 01:30:48 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 11:17:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 11:08:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Yes or no. Does he have the right to profit from it?

I answered your question in the text you quoted.

So it's a privilege to be allowed to profit off your work.

Wow.

Not at all what I said.

"There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege."

And that's why I told you to answer simply, yes or no.

What you want is to have some vague non-answer, that you can dance around with. And I'm not having it.

So, one more time: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP have a right to profit from it? Yes or no?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Have you?

I want a simple answer, yes or no.

One more time: Have you stopped beating your wife, Ghostmaker?

If you reject the fundamental assumptions behind a question, you can't answer it with a simple yes or no. Pretending you can makes you a wife beater, just because I asked you a question.

Blocked and reported.

I'm glad you think the proper response to someone wanting an answer to a pertinent question is to crack wise about spousal abuse.

Now go do a flip, you worthless fucktard.

I didn't crack wise about anything. I gave a clear illustration why demanding a simple yes/no answer to a question loaded with incorrect assumptions doesn't work.

What a brainless idiot.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 02:04:38 PM
Even if not a property, there can be intellectual products.

Saying its a privilege to profit off them is like saying its a privilege an armed guy with goons can't force you off your house.

Nobody said it was a privilege to profit off that, that was just Ghostmaker making a nasty and dishonest claim (and pretending to offended when I pointed out why it was so nasty and dishonest). We're not talking about all the ways to profit from something, we're only talking about the granting of a specific monopoly. And again, you're comparing something intangible and infinitely replicable with no degradation with a specific physical location that can't be infinitely shared, so it's an apples to scissors comparison.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 02:04:38 PM
Even if not a property, there can be intellectual products.

Saying its a privilege to profit off them is like saying its a privilege an armed guy with goons can't force you off your house.

Again the issue not your ability to create something off of your ideas and sell the result. The issue is whether you will have the limited ability to tell what others can do with your idea or expression of an idea.

Two completely different things.

Next

One issue of goons in your house is that your house floor space is a limited resource. Possession is a zero sum game. Either you have use of the property in question or you don't. Either one person always has use of a property or it apportioned out so different people has use of it at different times.

Use of an idea or an expression of a idea doesn't have the same limit. What I could do with your idea doesn't impact what you could do with your idea.

Well I will admit its a grey-zone, but I feel a purely materialistic view of reality doesn't super make sense because our interaction with it is primarily mental.

Saying profit off a mental product is ok but enforcement or protection of your claims to it isn't is a platitude.
Its true that law enforcement is a privilege, but nobody talks about it in those terms. A pure materialistic worldview ignores the concept of ideas or conceptual laws at all.

Claim to property at all is purely conceptual.

Edit: and yes Pat and Oddend, your method of conversation is extremly patronizing and evasive.