The notion that people downloading games makes them popular and profitable is demonstrably false.

Giving my games away hasn't made them more popular.  That's for sure

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
Does it make a difference if I type everything while plagiarizing your thesis or photocopy it?

I believe that the question I asked you.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
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.

Actually you can. Well more accurately you could. If you tried now there too much prior art so it would be considered obvious.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
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.

Unless it embodies the only practical way to make that aspect of the Vending Work.

And I know this happened because my father was sued by the guy who build the first metal cutting table to cut HVAC parts. We didn't know about the patent when we built the machine. In fact there was multiple competitors out there. But as turned out this guy was the first to put together all the elements of a Metal Cutting machines that cut HVAC parts. He sued the entire industry and won. Everybody who sold a HVAC cutting machine in the 90s had to pay this guy substantial royalties.

And my industry is not the only one that this happened too. A more famous example was the intermittent windshield wiper. A guy came up with the only practical solution to the problem. Demoed it, and also got a patent. Everybody ignored him and came out with their own. He sued everybody in the industry and won.

It rare that an invention is that fundamental but it happens and there is no way around it because Patents cover the ideas as well.

Take your vending machine example. What are the elements of a vending machines? You have a something that receives and count coins, a place to store the coins, a dispensing mechanism, and a way to load products into the machine. At one point in the past the above combination was novel enough to be patented just as I described it. In the late 19th century there were was a time where something held that patent. I believe it was for dispensing postcards in railroad stations. After the patent expired the race was one and further patent were for specific types of vending machine and when those expired, for specific mechanism within vending machines. Today pretty much any vending machine patent is only good for that exact vending machines.

Some fields like gasoline engines or computer chips slowly evolve through the combined efforts of everybody involved. Nobody has a fundamental patent.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
You keep conflating the IDEA with the product. Those are not the same.

And you don't have a understanding of patent law. Did you know you can get a patent on a material for example? They called composition of matter patents and companies get them when they invent a new alloy for example.

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

Agree with this, and also think that the renewal is where the work for hire exception should be carved out.  They hire you to write it, they own the original 28 year copyright.  Then you have the option to renew it, which gives you another 28 years to take it yourself or license it out to the original holder or whatever you want to do with it.  From that, it's pretty easy to set up a right of first refusal, such that if you renew, decide to sell, you name the price but the original holder has to be given first chance to purchase.  No monkey business with inheritance either, it's like a deed.  You die 21 years in, your heirs/estate now owns it.

In practice, with a law like that, wouldn't be a lot of times it would get used, because now the one that hired you has a vested interest in treating you well that first 28 years.

Of course, that only works if the time frame is reasonable.  None of this Evil Mouse Corp. extend to infinity and beyond nonsense.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 02:46:44 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
Does it make a difference if I type everything while plagiarizing your thesis or photocopy it?

I believe that the question I asked you.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
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.

Actually you can. Well more accurately you could. If you tried now there too much prior art so it would be considered obvious.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
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.

Unless it embodies the only practical way to make that aspect of the Vending Work.

And I know this happened because my father was sued by the guy who build the first metal cutting table to cut HVAC parts. We didn't know about the patent when we built the machine. In fact there was multiple competitors out there. But as turned out this guy was the first to put together all the elements of a Metal Cutting machines that cut HVAC parts. He sued the entire industry and won. Everybody who sold a HVAC cutting machine in the 90s had to pay this guy substantial royalties.

And my industry is not the only one that this happened too. A more famous example was the intermittent windshield wiper. A guy came up with the only practical solution to the problem. Demoed it, and also got a patent. Everybody ignored him and came out with their own. He sued everybody in the industry and won.

It rare that an invention is that fundamental but it happens and there is no way around it because Patents cover the ideas as well.

Take your vending machine example. What are the elements of a vending machines? You have a something that receives and count coins, a place to store the coins, a dispensing mechanism, and a way to load products into the machine. At one point in the past the above combination was novel enough to be patented just as I described it. In the late 19th century there were was a time where something held that patent. I believe it was for dispensing postcards in railroad stations. After the patent expired the race was one and further patent were for specific types of vending machine and when those expired, for specific mechanism within vending machines. Today pretty much any vending machine patent is only good for that exact vending machines.

Some fields like gasoline engines or computer chips slowly evolve through the combined efforts of everybody involved. Nobody has a fundamental patent.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
You keep conflating the IDEA with the product. Those are not the same.

And you don't have a understanding of patent law. Did you know you can get a patent on a material for example? They called composition of matter patents and companies get them when they invent a new alloy for example.

Yes you asked that, in case it wasn't clear my position is that there's no difference by which means you copy something.

I already stated that patent law was a different beast and needed to be treated different than artistic IP, maybe you missed it?

Idea: Lets make a new material with X characteristics.
Concrete product: Said new material which needed investment to become a reality.

The reason I think patent law needs it's own discussion is because there are some cases where granting the patent might hurt more than not granting it.

Take for instance a coin receptacle for a vending machine, a wide patent for the idea is stupid, even more so if there's no other way to do it. IMHO

It needs to be treated different than creative/artistic IP.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:45:52 PM
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.

Yes IP should be protected although we disagree on the reason why they should be protected.

But I will point out that the why makes a difference in the long run. If it turns out that society doesn't need to grant a monopoly on works or a specific type of work in order for progress or advancement to happen then I will vote or advocate for abolishing those monopolies. For example patron client relationship becomes the dominate means of compensating creatives.

And it won't be clear cut. Any change will have to be thoroughly debated. The change will mean that some that prosper under the new system and some will not. We see that now. Authors that were total asshole were successful under a traditional publisher-author relationship wilted with the advent of the Internet. Which places more of a premium on direct contact with one's audience. Before only the publisher had to deal with the person being a dick. With the internet it is on full display for everybody to see. And even when it has nothing to do with politics, people don't like dealing with assholes. Especially when it in their face after watching a video or reading a blog post.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2021, 02:48:08 PM

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

Agree with this, and also think that the renewal is where the work for hire exception should be carved out.  They hire you to write it, they own the original 28 year copyright.  Then you have the option to renew it, which gives you another 28 years to take it yourself or license it out to the original holder or whatever you want to do with it.  From that, it's pretty easy to set up a right of first refusal, such that if you renew, decide to sell, you name the price but the original holder has to be given first chance to purchase.  No monkey business with inheritance either, it's like a deed.  You die 21 years in, your heirs/estate now owns it.

In practice, with a law like that, wouldn't be a lot of times it would get used, because now the one that hired you has a vested interest in treating you well that first 28 years.

Of course, that only works if the time frame is reasonable.  None of this Evil Mouse Corp. extend to infinity and beyond nonsense.

Sounds reasonable, it allows the author time to benefit from his creation while stoping the Rat Shack from doing what they are doing.

Inheritance, does the heir own it until the original time limit expires and then it's public domain or what?

Trademarks, what about those? Should anyone be able to trademark Superman and thus prevent everybody from ever using it even if it got into public domain?

56 years is way too long.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 02:58:27 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:45:52 PM
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.

Yes IP should be protected although we disagree on the reason why they should be protected.

But I will point out that the why makes a difference in the long run. If it turns out that society doesn't need to grant a monopoly on works or a specific type of work in order for progress or advancement to happen then I will vote or advocate for abolishing those monopolies. For example patron client relationship becomes the dominate means of compensating creatives.

And it won't be clear cut. Any change will have to be thoroughly debated. The change will mean that some that prosper under the new system and some will not. We see that now. Authors that were total asshole were successful under a traditional publisher-author relationship wilted with the advent of the Internet. Which places more of a premium on direct contact with one's audience. Before only the publisher had to deal with the person being a dick. With the internet it is on full display for everybody to see. And even when it has nothing to do with politics, people don't like dealing with assholes. Especially when it in their face after watching a video or reading a blog post.

I'm fine with that, if or when such time comes the author still gets compensated, but you'd need to prove that abolishing IP wouldn't hurt said relationship to the point where the author stops being able to profit from his creation.

Unles such author is a dick, no one has the obligation to support a dick. So people choose not to give him money boo hoo, but they can't also enjoy his creation because they don't have that right.

I mean I put it behind a paywall for a reason, pay or not but don't just take it.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:59:05 PM

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.

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.

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 do not endorse or support large scale filesharing operations of copyrighted material.

However, as a creator I also don't care. If you build up a strong enough rapport with a sufficiently large customer base, there's no reason to be worried about this. The people who will download from a filesharing site are either people who never would have paid money for your product, or will pay money for your product regardless.

The people who have reasons to go ballistic about filesharing are not indie content creators, and if indie creators feel that way they probably haven't thought it through or still have something to learn about the business. The ones who do have reason to care are corporations and corporate shills, or neurotic psychopaths, people whose products are based on some kind of deception (say, a game that pretends to look like a gritty fantasy game but is actually about Social Justice), or some combination of all of the above.

Regarding IP, the thing it's important for as far as I'm concerned is not to prevent filesharing, but to prevent people from making direct copies of your product FOR SALE. And we know that if IP didn't exist the first people using this would be the Big Corporations who would be just outright stealing anything creatives made and not giving them a dime.

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?

When I talk about stock agencies. I'm talking about mega corporations who already pay their artists a pittance. They house millions of images, I don't know who downloads my stuff. But what I can tell you, after the 'big leak' lots of our income went down. And who knows what knock on effect it had. We are not talking about a few thousand images here.

Now, speaking about these stock agencies. Here's a thing that happens a lot. Not to me as I'm too small but the possibility is there. Some of the more popular photographers have had their images leaked as well. So every now and then, a phantom account is created by some cnut. Who then sells that person's photography as their own. With there being millions of pics and illustrations it could take months before these shits are found out. And that's probably by fluke as thee companies do little to route these bastards out. And even then, you've got to prove you own the image. This takes time.

And of course, at best, these criminals just have their account blocked. And generally being from India or China they are effectively immune to any consequences. And they just open up another one using a dodgy ID or credit card. This is a regular occurrence on their forums.

So yes... Its fucks with your income.

Quote from: RPGPundit on October 08, 2021, 03:36:02 PM
Regarding IP, the thing it's important for as far as I'm concerned is not to prevent filesharing, but to prevent people from making direct copies of your product FOR SALE. And we know that if IP didn't exist the first people using this would be the Big Corporations who would be just outright stealing anything creatives made and not giving them a dime.

My point exactly, but fucking commies keep arguing about filesharing because reasons.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 08, 2021, 03:39:27 PM

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?

When I talk about stock agencies. I'm talking about mega corporations who already pay their artists a pittance. They house millions of images, I don't know who downloads my stuff. But what I can tell you, after the 'big leak' lots of our income went down. And who knows what knock on effect it had. We are not talking about a few thousand images here.

Now, speaking about these stock agencies. Here's a thing that happens a lot. Not to me as I'm too small but the possibility is there. Some of the more popular photographers have had their images leaked as well. So every now and then, a phantom account is created by some cnut. Who then sells that person's photography as their own. With there being millions of pics and illustrations it could take months before these shits are found out. And that's probably by fluke as thee companies do little to route these bastards out. And even then, you've got to prove you own the image. This takes time.

And of course, at best, these criminals just have their account blocked. And generally being from India or China they are effectively immune to any consequences. And they just open up another one using a dodgy ID or credit card. This is a regular occurrence on their forums.

So yes... Its fucks with your income.

"Bbut muh freedom to take your shit and not pay for it!" Odbrain probably.