Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2021, 07:39:40 PMAs I see it, we should still give credit and recognition to these 1980s games, but they should be in the public domain so that other designers can legally build off of them.

Im more interested in individual ethics discussion really. Otherwise I do largely agree that ideas cannot ultimatly be protected. I will agree that there cannot be intelectual property, but whatever the hell it is is close enough to deserve some degree of protection.

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2021, 07:39:40 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 05:40:05 PM
To refine the idea further: I think discussions should be about how we want to exist as a species moreso that about purely survival.

I think my earlier post addressed this:

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2021, 01:04:54 PM
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.

As I see it, we should still give credit and recognition to these 1980s games, but they should be in the public domain so that other designers can legally build off of them.

For me, one of the most powerful illustrations I learned about copyright was from the 2014 film Selma. The film had to fake the words that Martin Luther King Jr used in his recorded speeches, because those were still under copyright and the film rights to them had been sold to Steven Spielberg. I think that is horrific. Dr. King's speeches are part of the public consciousness, and should most certainly be in the public domain by now. Keeping them as property to be bought and sold is a moral wrong.

Morally and ethically, I think people should profit from the fruits of their labors - whether intellectual or physical. They should get credit and recognition for their work. However, I don't think that current copyright and patent law helps this overall. It primarily the big corporations like Disney and record labels -- while independent artists are the ones most likely to forego copyright and give their creations away for free to get distribution and interest.

If copyright was 2 years (like someone here sugested) would anyone have bought the rights to make the harry potter movies? Or would the movie studio just wait for the copyright to expire?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 07:56:30 PM
If copyright was 2 years (like someone here sugested) would anyone have bought the rights to make the harry potter movies? Or would the movie studio just wait for the copyright to expire?

If copyright was 2 years, movie studios wouldn't make blockbuster movies -- or at least would make far less of them, because many people would be content to wait 2 years to watch the movie. And possibly J.K. Rowling might just be a multi-millionaire like Linus Torvalds instead of a billionaire. To me, that doesn't seem like a bad outcome.

I like many blockbuster movies, but then, I would also like many of the works in a world with more limited copyright -- like all the *other* Harry Potter adaptations that other people would create, instead of just Warner Brothers.

I'm not necessarily pushing for 2 years. I'm not sure what length I would most prefer, but I think the effectively infinite copyright that Disney is promoting is a bad idea.

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2021, 08:22:42 PMI'm not necessarily pushing for 2 years. I'm not sure what length I would most prefer, but I think the effectively infinite copyright that Disney is promoting is a bad idea.

I think a moral-ish reform needs to happen before a legal reform. Otherwise the laws will change but the corps will just wiggle the new laws to their benefit.

Thats effectively the issue in so many corrupt nations (I come from one).

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2021, 08:22:42 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 07:56:30 PM
If copyright was 2 years (like someone here sugested) would anyone have bought the rights to make the harry potter movies? Or would the movie studio just wait for the copyright to expire?

If copyright was 2 years, movie studios wouldn't make blockbuster movies -- or at least would make far less of them, because many people would be content to wait 2 years to watch the movie. And possibly J.K. Rowling might just be a multi-millionaire like Linus Torvalds instead of a billionaire. To me, that doesn't seem like a bad outcome.

I like many blockbuster movies, but then, I would also like many of the works in a world with more limited copyright -- like all the *other* Harry Potter adaptations that other people would create, instead of just Warner Brothers.

I'm not necessarily pushing for 2 years. I'm not sure what length I would most prefer, but I think the effectively infinite copyright that Disney is promoting is a bad idea.

Right, because anyone can make a blockbuster movie, I mean I could right now compete with the MCU...

"And possibly J.K. Rowling might just be a multi-millionaire like Linus Torvalds instead of a billionaire. To me, that doesn't seem like a bad outcome."

And she might be broke because Warner or Disney would just have waited 2 years to take her novel instead of buying the rights from her. And only in your upside down world the other outcome is in any way more possible.

Why is it that she earning less from her work is not a bad outcome?

Why is it that you think megacorporations wouldn't benefit the most from stripping creators from their IP?

They wouldn't need to hire anyone to write original stuff, they just need to wait 2 years (or whatever BS term you think it's best) to take away what someone else wrote. And not give a penny to the author.

"If copyright was 2 years, movie studios wouldn't make blockbuster movies -- or at least would make far less of them, because many people would be content to wait 2 years to watch the movie."

Yeah, because piracy doesn't exist and people can't see the movie for free (or almost) by just waiting a couple of months right now.

And yet we got the MCU (like it or hate it it made billions), despite the piracy making it so you only need to wait a few months to watch the movie and not give a red cent to the studio.

And if you don't mind watching a shitty camcorder then you need only wait a couple of days.

And yet we get blockbusters...

It's almost as if you didn't think thru your arguments.

At least this time you didn't use any false equivalence, that's something.

If IP was 2 years Hasbro could take most of Pundit's games and print and sell them... Without giving him any money.

Good luck trying to take D&D (even if it was totally legal to do so) print it and sell it and make any dent on Hasbro's sales.

But they could very well reduce yours, volume economy, they can print cheaper than you, they didn't incurr in the expenses of development, etc. So they could just fuck you over and you could do shit.

I get it, I also hate Disney and every other megacorp. Doesn't mean your "solution" isn't going to fuck in the ass the small guy and not them.

If copyright didn't exist I see big blockbuster studious just making semi-official pacts that would function about the same as copyright anyway, and working together to force others to join them.

Similarly to the comics code authority stamp in a way.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 08:58:45 PM

"And possibly J.K. Rowling might just be a multi-millionaire like Linus Torvalds instead of a billionaire. To me, that doesn't seem like a bad outcome."

I suspect there has never been anyone as rich as J.K. Rowling was.  She had in cash, not even Scrooge McDuck ever had it all in cash.  It's insane how much cash she had.  Not stocks or options or investments or land or mines or small Balkan nations, cash!

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?

This is the stuff that they are coming up with at the moment:



So the answer is hell yes they would suddenly improve.

Quote from: Oddend on October 11, 2021, 04:53:02 PM
Flawless argument. I guess copying must be theft.

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

Do you have any argument to support this? Even if by "technically" you mean "legally" or "in the court of law", this isn't accurate: see here, or more specifically here.

The way it works in the real world is closer to the model Estar has advocated, which is roughly "Copying things isn't theft, but for the greater good, We the People think it should be illegal for most people to copy some things most of the time".

In the words of the late Norm, "No offense, but [that] sounds like some fucking commie gobbledygook" to me.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
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?

This presumes a certain meaning of "right to profit". If you'll let me, I'll break down why my "simple answer" would be "no", given what I'm guessing you mean by those words, "right to profit". If you want to skip the rest of the post and call me a communist or any other variation on "worthless fucktard", then go right ahead. I really don't care.

If a man owns a hardware store (we can even assume it's the first one in all of human history), does he have a "right to profit from it"?

If we mean "he should be permitted to make commercial use of his property", then I think it's pretty obvious the answer is "yes".

If we mean "he should be permitted to make commercial use of his property AND prohibit any and all other hardware stores from making commercial use of their property within a certain time frame and/or region", then I think you would agree that it's pretty obvious the answer is "no".

Why? Because he doesn't get to tell other people what to do with their property. (If anyone reading this disagrees with the notion of property, then I don't care; the whole concept of IP rests on the validity of the concept of property.)

Now, if a man conceives of and develops an IP, does he have a "right to profit from it"?

If we mean "he should be permitted to make commercial use of the IP", then I think it's pretty obvious the answer is "yes".

If we mean "he should be permitted to make commercial use of the IP AND prohibit any and all other people from making commercial use of the IP within a certain time frame and/or region", then my guess is that you would say "yes", but I would STILL say that it's pretty obvious that the answer is "no".

Why? Because he still doesn't get to tell other people what to do with their property (ink, paper, film, or whatever). "The IP" is neither his property nor their property. It's just information. Unlike his or their personal property, they can all make use of "the IP" at the same time. Likewise, infinite people can make use of the concept of a hardware store (or "superhero") or even a specific implementation pattern of a hardware store (or "superhero", e.g. Superman).

The fact that both parties (him, and all other people on the planet) are able to use the IP simultaneously demonstrates that any given use does not deprive the original user either of their use of "the IP", or of "the IP" itself. And this does not mean it "belongs to everyone", as some might phrase it. It just belongs to no one, just as "triangles" and "Platonic solids" belong to no one, despite that they and their properties were at one time the discovery of one or a few people.

I'm sure you're aware that many significant world-changing technologies have been discovered simultaneously and independently by multiple people, often separated by oceans. Whose "property" is any one of those inventions? The Wright brothers, for example, were not the first nor the most successful aviators of their time, but they were almost certainly the first and most successful patent trolls in aviation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war

It's pretty indisputable that their legalized harassment of other aviators did no good for the advancement of aviation. And if you object that it's not about "the advancement of aviation", it's about "their right to profit from the IP", then again I would ask "whose IP was it, and how?"

EDIT: I would agree, though, "it's not about the advancement of aviation". I would say "it's about" the protection of individual rights (which basically boil down to "property rights").

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 08:58:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2021, 08:22:42 PM
And possibly J.K. Rowling might just be a multi-millionaire like Linus Torvalds instead of a billionaire. To me, that doesn't seem like a bad outcome.

And she might be broke because Warner or Disney would just have waited 2 years to take her novel instead of buying the rights from her. And only in your upside down world the other outcome is in any way more possible.

Why is it that she earning less from her work is not a bad outcome?

Why is it that you think megacorporations wouldn't benefit the most from stripping creators from their IP?

They wouldn't need to hire anyone to write original stuff, they just need to wait 2 years (or whatever BS term you think it's best) to take away what someone else wrote. And not give a penny to the author.

Disney and other megacorporations have spent billions pushing for longer and stronger IP protections, for decades. Besides copyright extensions, they supported the DMCA which further penalized even fair use of copyrighted material. If shorter/weaker IP protections would serve their purposes better, then they most certainly would have pursued those instead.

Quite simply, your arguments are exactly what the arguments that the megacorporations have been espousing - so I don't think it works to claim that you're opposing them.

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2021, 09:55:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 08:58:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2021, 08:22:42 PM
And possibly J.K. Rowling might just be a multi-millionaire like Linus Torvalds instead of a billionaire. To me, that doesn't seem like a bad outcome.

And she might be broke because Warner or Disney would just have waited 2 years to take her novel instead of buying the rights from her. And only in your upside down world the other outcome is in any way more possible.

Why is it that she earning less from her work is not a bad outcome?

Why is it that you think megacorporations wouldn't benefit the most from stripping creators from their IP?

They wouldn't need to hire anyone to write original stuff, they just need to wait 2 years (or whatever BS term you think it's best) to take away what someone else wrote. And not give a penny to the author.

Disney and other megacorporations have spent billions pushing for longer and stronger IP protections, for decades. Besides copyright extensions, they supported the DMCA which further penalized even fair use of copyrighted material. If shorter/weaker IP protections would serve their purposes better, then they most certainly would have pursued those instead.

Quite simply, your arguments are exactly what the arguments that the megacorporations have been espousing - so I don't think it works to claim that you're opposing them.

And if tomorrow IP stoped existing they would totally throw their hands in the air and you'd become as rich as them...

Remember that they were making huge money well before the expansion of IP, remember they can,will and have colluded to keep you out.

You seem to think that a complex problem has an easy, obvious and simple sollution, not surprizing since you're a self admited leftist.

You need to stop thinking that and start thinking more than two steps downstream the results of your propossed policies.

In an ancap ideal world the estate would have never existed (some of them think it didn't even after the stone age), people would be perfectly good and none of our current problems would exist because the evul estate created all of them.

Lets say that's 100% true.

But the estate exists, megacorporations exist, now how can we solve the problem without giving all the advantages to megacorporations?

Your "solution" doesn't work because money is power, you can't make a blockbuster movie because you lack the money, you can't print at the same volumes Hasbro can, you can't develop all of the related stuff Hasbro can based on your game at the speed they can.

You can't out compete them, therefore the evul state created evul IP laws need to exist and they need to be such as to protect the little guy. I agree this isn't always the case currently. Star Trek Discovery STOLE from a guy most of the stuff they did different than the true Trek (the blue tardigrade? Most of their characters on the first season?). And he lost the law suit.

So I do agree the law needs changing, but you want to either abolish it or make it so the little guy gets fucked in the ass harder.

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?

Why does this matter? If you did think it would improve the quality of stories, would you be anti-IP? Why?

I would remain an anti-IP even if I thought it would somehow "harm" the quality of stories (however that could be calculated). It's not about pragmatism or "the greater good", though; it's about individual rights.

Incidentally, I do think that the bar for "high quality comics" would be raised dramatically, since anyone, including [your favorite writer here] or [your favorite director here] or [your favorite artist here] would be able to make their own Superman or Spiderman or whatever stories, with no holds barred. The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, while they would remain enjoyable, would be eclipsed by superior works in no time at all.

At the same time, there would be plenty more worthless schlock out there, but that wouldn't actually lower the bar for "worthless schlock" at all, since every major creative industry has been an artistic cesspit pretty much since their inception.

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.

"Privilege to profit off them" in this context doesn't mean "privilege to sit and mind your own business", though. It means "privilege to interfere in the business of others" (or to have the government interfere on your behalf). Normally when you interfere with another person's use of their personal property, it's called harassment, or assault, or property damage, or what have you.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 07:42:34 PM
I will 100% disagree on that. We can make judgement decisions but we are not ultimately rational beings.

Pretty sure 99% of economics is a study of that.

Nope, economics is lamblasted for assuming the perfectly rational Homo economicus instead of human beings, in many models. Which is a false criticism, but there is an element of truth to it. I don't have my copy in front of me, but I think David Friedman put it pretty well in Hidden Order. To badly paraphrase, we don't really believe that people react perfectly rationally all the time, but if there's an optimal choice, then enough people will choose it that we can draw some useful conclusions. Conversely, if we assume people act irrationally, we can't draw any conclusions because it's all random.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 07:42:34 PM

QuoteThe morality we've developed occurs at a level below that of rationality.

Apologies but....No it isn't. Even basic sociological (and at this point increasing amount of biological data) study says we act off gut and then make up rationals for it second. Our rationals are channeled versions of instincts we justify to ourselves.
Our rationality is ultimatly subjective and irrational.
The belief that people are largescale rational actors is one of the many catastrophic, CATASTROPHIC flaws of communists and enlightment revolutionaries. The thought that led to largescale purges and eugenics is the belief that people COULD be.

Using 'rationality' to develop ethics, is like using a sand castle to prop up sand. Its still ultimatly just sand.
Edit: And its also performing brain surgery on yourself without a doctors degree.

I agree that humans primarily use reasoning to come up with after the fact justifications for decisions we made at a level below that of reason. There's very strong evidence for that. But your extreme interpretation seems to deny the possibility of scientific development. It's worth remembering that the reason we come up with those rationales isn't to convince ourselves, but to convince others. Competition of ideas may have evolved as a mechanism for gaining status, but it still evolved.

But I'm going to drop the topic, because it doesn't seem to be relevant to intellectual not-property.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 02:41:04 PM
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.

This kind of speculation is all fine, but isn't very practical in a debate that rests on the validity of ordinary property rights (i.e. "IP either should or should not be extended the same protection as ordinary property", or "IP either is or is not property, and should be protected if it is"). If one is not sure whether property really exists or not, then how do we even get to the concept of IP? It's a different discussion altogether.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 02:41:04 PM
Edit: and yes Pat and Oddend, your method of conversation is extremly patronizing and evasive.

No, this is patronizing:

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 03:02:00 PM
If somebody doesn't understand the principle philosophy behind your idea, you don't accuse them of supporting slavery or insisting that they are engaging in loaded questions:
You explain yourself better. If you believe that your conversational partner is not engaging on good faith, make it known to them or stop the conversation.

As for your comment about "you don't accuse them of supporting slavery", I assume you're talking about my analogy to the "who would pick the cotton?" non-dillema, which isn't an accusation of any sort, let alone saying you support slavery. In fact, bringing up the analogy wouldn't make any sense at all unless I was assuming that you didn't support slavery.

The whole point is that the logic is the same as "But how would artists get rich?" (to paraphrase most nightmare scenarios), and that providing possible answers the question, while it can be done, is not actually important in either situation (whether IP law or government protection of slavery).

On the other hand, if you're talking about way waaay back in the thread, where I think it was brought up that IP law enforcement is "slavery of a degree", then I actually would agree with that assertion, but I don't remember anyone saying that to you. And again, the whole point of bringing it up would rest on the assumption that the person being addressed does not support slavery (i.e. "you obviously wouldn't support slavery, so why do you support this thing that is similar in principle?").