Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

I would agree if I thought it would solve anything, it won't.
Plus if the owner of the IP doesn't care then what?
Of course if the owner didn't really care he would have put his work under CC0 or in the public domain from day one.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:26:10 PM
If you take my game to play it you're benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

If you take it to print and then sell you are benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

In both cases you're benefiting from MY investment without just compensation.

But again, benefiting from someone else's investment isn't an inherent wrong.

Suppose you invest and make a great game store. You send out flyers; you work on creating an eye-catching sign; you make your game store pretty and work to keep it clean. That's a lot of investment on your part. I open up a cheapo game store across the street with packed shelves, second-hand games, and so forth.

I am benefiting from the investment that you put in getting gamers to come to this corner, because they'll see my store and might buy a game cheaply from my store compared to yours. Am I stealing from you?

I think the answer here is no, I'm not. Just because you invest money in something, that doesn't mean that you are guaranteed a reward. Sometimes investments benefit others more than they benefit you.

-----

As others have said, I approve of limited copyright because I like having a robust book and media market. But it is an artificial incentive created by the government to encourage certain behavior. I'd compare it to the old American government giving land leases to anyone who would move out west to certain territories. Go out and put in some work to clear some land, and the government will let you benefit from that public land as a farm for 20 years. The government does this as a reward to encourage certain behavior.

But that's an artificially created right. You can't just go anywhere and expect that if you work on public land, then it becomes yours.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Oh for fuck sake, you know damn well that there are creative works that require tremendous teamwork like a movie production. it would be extremely impractical with the current state of the work make something like the Lord of the Rings without the right to control how the finished worked is copied and distributed. Without some type of IP Law nobody would be willing to invest the resources needed to create something on that scale with the current state of the art.

"Your failed business model is not my problem."

Just because traditional methods of production rely on a protection racket doesn't mean that non-coercive methods of production can't or don't exist. It's the existence of the protection racket that has allowed the entertainment industry to go so long without figuring out how to run a business without the mafia on their side (if you think "mafia" is an exaggeration, please look up what happened to Kim Dotcom for having a generic file hosting service).

If you want to use this argument, you'll have to explain the existence of the Blender Foundation Open Movies, which are open source movies made with open source software (which you'll also have to explain the existence of - especially Blender itself, which is quickly becoming the most popular 3D production software in the industry).

One of my favorite documentaries, Get Lamp, is also CC-BY. So is The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz, which, incidentally, it's the story of how IP law was used to bully a modern day hero into suicide.

How are these movies produced? Why? How could it be done? Clearly there was no incentive, and they were just made by crazy people! Or maybe the "Nobody Would Solve the Problem Because I Personally Can't Think of How" hypothesis just isn't supported the empirical evidence. The problem has already been solved in many ways by many people.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

I never stated this though, so I don't see how it's relevant. Don't start acting like GeekyBugle.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
Man there really is no middle or nuance with you two.

You've made lots of great points on why IP law makes no sense and is intentionally harmful toward people who have done nothing wrong; I don't see how you can be in favor of it.

"Doing harm to people temporarily" isn't some kind of "reasonable middle ground" between "doing no harm" and "harming too much". It's just doing harm.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:21:26 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

I would agree if I thought it would solve anything, it won't.
Plus if the owner of the IP doesn't care then what?
Of course if the owner didn't really care he would have put his work under CC0 or in the public domain from day one.

Actually many people are quite ignorant on the damage they do by downloading the protected works of others.
The person running that site (Pirate Trove?) is assuredly one who deserves serving time in a "federal pound him in the ass prison".

Quote from: jhkim on October 08, 2021, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:26:10 PM
If you take my game to play it you're benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

If you take it to print and then sell you are benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

In both cases you're benefiting from MY investment without just compensation.

But again, benefiting from someone else's investment isn't an inherent wrong.

Suppose you invest and make a great game store. You send out flyers; you work on creating an eye-catching sign; you make your game store pretty and work to keep it clean. That's a lot of investment on your part. I open up a cheapo game store across the street with packed shelves, second-hand games, and so forth.

I am benefiting from the investment that you put in getting gamers to come to this corner, because they'll see my store and might buy a game cheaply from my store compared to yours. Am I stealing from you?

I think the answer here is no, I'm not. Just because you invest money in something, that doesn't mean that you are guaranteed a reward. Sometimes investments benefit others more than they benefit you.

-----

As others have said, I approve of limited copyright because I like having a robust book and media market. But it is an artificial incentive created by the government to encourage certain behavior. I'd compare it to the old American government giving land leases to anyone who would move out west to certain territories. Go out and put in some work to clear some land, and the government will let you benefit from that public land as a farm for 20 years. The government does this as a reward to encourage certain behavior.

But that's an artificially created right. You can't just go anywhere and expect that if you work on public land, then it becomes yours.

Another false equivalence...

Did you take my store away from me?

No, you took the idea and ran with it.

As someone that has been a business owner let me tell you a small secret:

The best place to put a taco stand is where there are already other taco stands, and no one looses anything, because the place becomes known for being the place to go eat tacos.

So a place that becomes known for being the place where you can go buy/play games would benefit both, the pioneer and the johny come lately.

If you're going to answer to me again I would appreciate you didn't use logical fallacies in your "arguments" against me.

As for the land leases, you needed to work the land a certain time and then it became yours. Unless you contend your government had no right to do so it's not the same, yet another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

You don't have the obligation to buy my shit, but that's not granting you the right to just take it without giving me money.

Lets go back to tacos. I put a taco stand near your workplace. Do you have any obligation to buy my tacos? Nope
Do you have the right to eat my tacos without paying for them? Nope.

I write a game and publish it. Do you have any obligation to buy it? Nope
Do you have the right to get the book in whatever format without paying for it? Nope.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Oh for fuck sake, you know damn well that there are creative works that require tremendous teamwork like a movie production. it would be extremely impractical with the current state of the work make something like the Lord of the Rings without the right to control how the finished worked is copied and distributed. Without some type of IP Law nobody would be willing to invest the resources needed to create something on that scale with the current state of the art.

"Your failed business model is not my problem."

Just because traditional methods of production rely on a protection racket doesn't mean that non-coercive methods of production can't or don't exist. It's the existence of the protection racket that has allowed the entertainment industry to go so long without figuring out how to run a business without the mafia on their side (if you think "mafia" is an exaggeration, please look up what happened to Kim Dotcom for having a generic file hosting service).

If you want to use this argument, you'll have to explain the existence of the Blender Foundation Open Movies, which are open source movies made with open source software (which you'll also have to explain the existence of - especially Blender itself, which is quickly becoming the most popular 3D production software in the industry).

One of my favorite documentaries, Get Lamp, is also CC-BY. So is The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz, which, incidentally, it's the story of how IP law was used to bully a modern day hero into suicide.

How are these movies produced? Why? How could it be done? Clearly there was no incentive, and they were just made by crazy people! Or maybe the "Nobody Would Solve the Problem Because I Personally Can't Think of How" hypothesis just isn't supported the empirical evidence. The problem has already been solved in many ways by many people.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

I never stated this though, so I don't see how it's relevant. Don't start acting like GeekyBugle.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
Man there really is no middle or nuance with you two.

You've made lots of great points on why IP law makes no sense and is intentionally harmful toward people who have done nothing wrong; I don't see how you can be in favor of it.

"Doing harm to people temporarily" isn't some kind of "reasonable middle ground" between "doing no harm" and "harming too much". It's just doing harm.

Bolding mine.

Translation: "Not allowing me to take your shit without paying you for it is harming me!" Fucking commies man.

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:41:11 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:21:26 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

I would agree if I thought it would solve anything, it won't.
Plus if the owner of the IP doesn't care then what?
Of course if the owner didn't really care he would have put his work under CC0 or in the public domain from day one.

Actually many people are quite ignorant on the damage they do by downloading the protected works of others.
The person running that site (Pirate Trove?) is assuredly one who deserves serving time in a "federal pound him in the ass prison".

Actually, I'm completely aware that I do damage by piracy.

Which is why I'm pirating from people who promote SJW/wokeist bullshit.  You wound my culture? I wound you.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 08, 2021, 01:52:48 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:41:11 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:21:26 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

I would agree if I thought it would solve anything, it won't.
Plus if the owner of the IP doesn't care then what?
Of course if the owner didn't really care he would have put his work under CC0 or in the public domain from day one.

Actually many people are quite ignorant on the damage they do by downloading the protected works of others.
The person running that site (Pirate Trove?) is assuredly one who deserves serving time in a "federal pound him in the ass prison".

Actually, I'm completely aware that I do damage by piracy.

Which is why I'm pirating from people who promote SJW/wokeist bullshit.  You wound my culture? I wound you.

I'd hate to take the wind out of your sails (truly), but "pirating" information simply leaves the content creator financially in the same state as if you had never heard of them to begin with (i.e. it does nothing).

I fully endorse not sending money to people who would have you corralled into a boxcar, but if "piracy" was harmful to creators, then it would be a drop in the bucket compared to all the "harm" done by the rest of the world also not buying their products.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
Is it a word for word copy? Are the maps an exact copy? Or is it just a "copy" in the same sense that any retroclone is a copy of a famous game?

Sections of it are a word for word copy. I edited it differently. The maps are a different artistic presentation of the original.

The difference mine is the color version.



The original looked something like this.


Mine looked like this


I know they don't depict the same thing but I typed in the data from the original and with the help of my editor checked them for accuracy.

Also it differs a lot in how the everything is presented. The tables between cleaned up and their looks standardize. Also I added extensive commentary that wasn't in the original. But everything that was in the original is in my version.
For an example of mine
https://d1vzi28wh99zvq.cloudfront.net/pdf_previews/238024-sample.pdf

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
That's why the OGL has a clasule about designating open content and why trade dress is often not included as such.

Oh, and that's another thing, is the wilderlands under the OGL?

95% of the product is product identity the only thing that open content are a few monster listings.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
If it's not a word for word exact copy with the maps being an exact copy then it's not the same product is it?

Yet under current IP law I needed to have a license and permission from Judges Guild to do this product. Which I had. Most of the text, the maps were a derivative of items copyrighted by Judges Guild.

None of it was an actual copy unless you consider me typing in text as opposed to scanning or taking a photo copying. If that the case only the tables are a close copy. The rest is my original writing that in many cases paraphrased the original text. The original text was too terse and too badly organized for my purposes.

So again my question stands, if I didn't have a license, if I didn't use open content under license, would this work be stealing despite not literally not copying any physical or digital products made by Judges Guild.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
And you also need to stop conflating the abstract (idea) with the concrete (a finished creative work).

Do you know it is possible to patent a game? Since Patents cover ideas this is part of conversation about IP.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
Man there's really not getting thru you. You agree that IP law is needed, and yet claim IP works aren't property. You need to decide which is true.

Actually I don't, I don't need to consider creative works property in order to create a law that give you the exclusive right to copy and distribute to works you create.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

In fact the current US Code governing copyright, patents, and trademark doesn't use the word property much. I posted a link to definitions used in the US Copyright Code. Property is used in some places because is part of the name of a law pass by congress. It used in section 107 covering what Libraries may do with items that come into their possession. The word is used in Section 114 which is about royalties for sound recordings and how they are distributed but it is about superseding similar state laws. Same thing for Section 115. And reason State Property laws is because IP rights produce income.

Instead the central concept here is the "work".

QuoteA work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

And the core of this whole law is section 106 the conferring of exclusive rights. And sections 107 to 122 outlines various exceptions and nuances to the blanket grant below.

QuoteSubject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Not where it says that one creative work is the property of the creator.

Finally this is why I needed a license from Judges Guild to my project.

Quote(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

QuoteA "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

I make a living from art (not from RPGs stuff, obviously). But some years ago, I had a lot of my stock art stolen and then re-distributed for free. Me, and thousands of other artists, incidentally.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's 'theft' because you are stealing money from my pocket. AKA - affecting my personal earnings.

Sadly, there's not much you can do about it. Mainly, because these attacks are perpetrated by professional criminals outside western jurisdiction.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 08, 2021, 02:05:44 PM
I make a living from art (not from RPGs stuff, obviously). But some years ago, I had a lot of my stock art stolen and then re-distributed for free. Me, and thousands of other artists, incidentally.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's 'theft' because you are stealing money from my pocket. AKA - affecting my personal earnings.

Sadly, there's not much you can do about it. Mainly, because these attacks are perpetrated by professional criminals outside western jurisdiction.

Did any of your regular clients switch to using the free dump instead of paying you to create new stuff?

Do you believe anyone using the free dump was a potential client before the dump?

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 02:05:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
Is it a word for word copy? Are the maps an exact copy? Or is it just a "copy" in the same sense that any retroclone is a copy of a famous game?

Sections of it are a word for word copy. I edited it differently. The maps are a different artistic presentation of the original.

The difference mine is the color version.



The original looked something like this.


Mine looked like this


I know they don't depict the same thing but I typed in the data from the original and with the help of my editor checked them for accuracy.

Also it differs a lot in how the everything is presented. The tables between cleaned up and their looks standardize. Also I added extensive commentary that wasn't in the original. But everything that was in the original is in my version.
For an example of mine
https://d1vzi28wh99zvq.cloudfront.net/pdf_previews/238024-sample.pdf

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
That's why the OGL has a clasule about designating open content and why trade dress is often not included as such.

Oh, and that's another thing, is the wilderlands under the OGL?

95% of the product is product identity the only thing that open content are a few monster listings.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
If it's not a word for word exact copy with the maps being an exact copy then it's not the same product is it?

Yet under current IP law I needed to have a license and permission from Judges Guild to do this product. Which I had. Most of the text, the maps were a derivative of items copyrighted by Judges Guild.

None of it was an actual copy unless you consider me typing in text as opposed to scanning or taking a photo copying. If that the case only the tables are a close copy. The rest is my original writing that in many cases paraphrased the original text. The original text was too terse and too badly organized for my purposes.

So again my question stands, if I didn't have a license, if I didn't use open content under license, would this work be stealing despite not literally not copying any physical or digital products made by Judges Guild.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
And you also need to stop conflating the abstract (idea) with the concrete (a finished creative work).

Do you know it is possible to patent a game? Since Patents cover ideas this is part of conversation about IP.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
Man there's really not getting thru you. You agree that IP law is needed, and yet claim IP works aren't property. You need to decide which is true.

Actually I don't, I don't need to consider creative works property in order to create a law that give you the exclusive right to copy and distribute to works you create.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

In fact the current US Code governing copyright, patents, and trademark doesn't use the word property much. I posted a link to definitions used in the US Copyright Code. Property is used in some places because is part of the name of a law pass by congress. It used in section 107 covering what Libraries may do with items that come into their possession. The word is used in Section 114 which is about royalties for sound recordings and how they are distributed but it is about superseding similar state laws. Same thing for Section 115. And reason State Property laws is because IP rights produce income.

Instead the central concept here is the "work".

QuoteA work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

And the core of this whole law is section 106 the conferring of exclusive rights. And sections 107 to 122 outlines various exceptions and nuances to the blanket grant below.

QuoteSubject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Not where it says that one creative work is the property of the creator.

Finally this is why I needed a license from Judges Guild to my project.

Quote(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

QuoteA "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

Right, so it is a derivative work, which is covered by IP law, as it should, you took everything from the original and included it with better/cleaned presentation which ammounts to editing.

Does it make a difference if I type everything while plagiarizing your thesis or photocopy it?

You can patent a game, but not game mechanics, which are the ideas. As in you can't patent the idea of puting the small ball in that hole to earn points. Because that's the idea.

Likewise I can patent a mechanism for a vending machine. But you can develop your own mechanism for your own vending machine, which is the idea.

You keep conflating the IDEA with the product. Those are not the same.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 02:15:47 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 08, 2021, 02:05:44 PM
I make a living from art (not from RPGs stuff, obviously). But some years ago, I had a lot of my stock art stolen and then re-distributed for free. Me, and thousands of other artists, incidentally.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's 'theft' because you are stealing money from my pocket. AKA - affecting my personal earnings.

Sadly, there's not much you can do about it. Mainly, because these attacks are perpetrated by professional criminals outside western jurisdiction.

Did any of your regular clients switch to using the free dump instead of paying you to create new stuff?

Do you believe anyone using the free dump was a potential client before the dump?

What does that matter? Do they have the right to enjoy his shit without paying him for it? Against his will? Fucking commies man.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
If you want to use this argument, you'll have to explain the existence of the Blender Foundation Open Movies, which are open source movies made with open source software (which you'll also have to explain the existence of - especially Blender itself, which is quickly becoming the most popular 3D production software in the industry).

One of my favorite documentaries, Get Lamp, is also CC-BY. So is The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz, which, incidentally, it's the story of how IP law was used to bully a modern day hero into suicide.

How are these movies produced? Why? How could it be done? Clearly there was no incentive, and they were just made by crazy people! Or maybe the "Nobody Would Solve the Problem Because I Personally Can't Think of How" hypothesis just isn't supported the empirical evidence. The problem has already been solved in many ways by many people.

An explanation? Sure! It is a step on the path to a future where elaborate movie production will become doable by an individual or a very small group.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
I never stated this though, so I don't see how it's relevant. Don't start acting like GeekyBugle.

You said that it was cowardly for a creator not to share in the basis they won't get compensation. My counterpoint is some creative works are so time consuming and resource intensive to make that the only way to realize them if the people involved are compensated.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
You've made lots of great points on why IP law makes no sense and is intentionally harmful toward people who have done nothing wrong; I don't see how you can be in favor of it.

"Doing harm to people temporarily" isn't some kind of "reasonable middle ground" between "doing no harm" and "harming too much". It's just doing harm.

I don't support how IP Law as it now stands. As I stated clearly earlier in the thread, I feel that 28 years plus an additional 28 years of if the creator renews is adequate compensation. But during those 28 to 56 years the creator has exclusive rights. I am also favor of a copyright small claims court systems, and I am in favor moving from 35 years to 28 years the windows for the original author to reclaim their copyright. The idea is that when renewal comes up the original author can opt to reclaim the copyright in their works. The only exception would be work for hire and I would favor a better and clear definition of what work for hire means. Also the idea of collaborative works needs some work when multiple individuals are involved the creation of a work. Finally a method of formally committing one's work to the public domain and/or copyleft is needed.

As for the idea of harm, nobody getting harmed here. Several folks throughout US history including Supreme Court justices has written variants of "True Liberty can not exist when people don't consider the consequences of their action on other people's liberty." For example not allowing people to build nuclear reactors in their backyards, or fining people for not getting a smallpox vaccine.

In the case of IP we know that people realizing their creative ideas is a positive good for society. We want to encourage this. Prior to the advent of the internet the only effective method of encouraging this was grant of some type of monopoly. Now this only completely true for certain type of creative works. For the works that been impacted by the internet and digital technology; music, some images, and written works; we need to modify this. But it remains unclear exactly what modifications are needed. But even works that have been impacted there still a time component that people need encouragement in order for them to make the investment.

In short the situation isn't simplistic. Adopting a completely libertarian solution is not going to work, neither treating IP as tangible property when it is not, nor is rounding up all the pirates and shooting them will work.

Hope that makes sense.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 02:29:31 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
If you want to use this argument, you'll have to explain the existence of the Blender Foundation Open Movies, which are open source movies made with open source software (which you'll also have to explain the existence of - especially Blender itself, which is quickly becoming the most popular 3D production software in the industry).

One of my favorite documentaries, Get Lamp, is also CC-BY. So is The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz, which, incidentally, it's the story of how IP law was used to bully a modern day hero into suicide.

How are these movies produced? Why? How could it be done? Clearly there was no incentive, and they were just made by crazy people! Or maybe the "Nobody Would Solve the Problem Because I Personally Can't Think of How" hypothesis just isn't supported the empirical evidence. The problem has already been solved in many ways by many people.

An explanation? Sure! It is a step on the path to a future where elaborate movie production will become doable by an individual or a very small group.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
I never stated this though, so I don't see how it's relevant. Don't start acting like GeekyBugle.

You said that it was cowardly for a creator not to share in the basis they won't get compensation. My counterpoint is some creative works are so time consuming and resource intensive to make that the only way to realize them if the people involved are compensated.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
You've made lots of great points on why IP law makes no sense and is intentionally harmful toward people who have done nothing wrong; I don't see how you can be in favor of it.

"Doing harm to people temporarily" isn't some kind of "reasonable middle ground" between "doing no harm" and "harming too much". It's just doing harm.

I don't support how IP Law as it now stands. As I stated clearly earlier in the thread, I feel that 28 years plus an additional 28 years of if the creator renews is adequate compensation. But during those 28 to 56 years the creator has exclusive rights. I am also favor of a copyright small claims court systems, and I am in favor moving from 35 years to 28 years the windows for the original author to reclaim their copyright. The idea is that when renewal comes up the original author can opt to reclaim the copyright in their works. The only exception would be work for hire and I would favor a better and clear definition of what work for hire means. Also the idea of collaborative works needs some work when multiple individuals are involved the creation of a work. Finally a method of formally committing one's work to the public domain and/or copyleft is needed.

As for the idea of harm, nobody getting harmed here. Several folks throughout US history including Supreme Court justices has written variants of "True Liberty can not exist when people don't consider the consequences of their action on other people's liberty." For example not allowing people to build nuclear reactors in their backyards, or fining people for not getting a smallpox vaccine.

In the case of IP we know that people realizing their creative ideas is a positive good for society. We want to encourage this. Prior to the advent of the internet the only effective method of encouraging this was grant of some type of monopoly. Now this only completely true for certain type of creative works. For the works that been impacted by the internet and digital technology; music, some images, and written works; we need to modify this. But it remains unclear exactly what modifications are needed. But even works that have been impacted there still a time component that people need encouragement in order for them to make the investment.

In short the situation isn't simplistic. Adopting a completely libertarian solution is not going to work, neither treating IP as tangible property when it is not, nor is rounding up all the pirates and shooting them will work.

Hope that makes sense.

So, you and I disagree on the why but do agree on the what. Since I'm not an ideologue that's good enough for me, IP should be protected and both current laws of IP and trademark need to be modified.

Did I sumarize correctly your position on the subject?

If so all is good and we can be on the same side even if we disagree on the why.