Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

Hey guys
This is something of a serious note, any feedback to the following will be much appreciated. As a fan of any art, literature, and so forth I found this quite disturbing at the stupidity of some companies.
This letter comes from a fan site dedicated to creating Skins and Meshes involving Marvel characters for the game Freedom Force. What has come to my understanding is that anything a fan does that "distributes" copyrighted material in any form (Like our great Star Trek Mods) is infringing on the rights of the company.
Funny thing I thought Fans are supposed to love and support their favorite Icon, I guess all those Star Trek conventions are breaking the law. I feel a gnawing disgust at the moment.

(note, this letter has been edited to remove my mailing address)

MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC.

June 9, 2003

Re: UNATHORIZED USE OF MARVEL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

ELI BARD
SENIOR LITIGATION ATTORNEY

Dear Mr. Benson and Ms. Horn:

I write to inform you that the website that you are listed as the administrative contact for, www.skindex.net, contains and evidently distributes unauthorized reproductions of Marvel's valuable intellectual property.

Skindex,net is not permitted to copy or reproduce the copyrighted images or distinctive likenesses of Marvel's characters, nor use the registered trademarks associated with those characters such as Spider-Man, Wolverine, Nightcrawler, etc.

The property skindex.net is infringing is protected by the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101, et seq. The Copyright Act provides the owner of a copyrighted work, in this instance, Marvel, with, among other exclusive rights, the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies and to distribute copies of the works to the public. The remedies for copyright infringement include the copyright owner's option to elect statutory damages which range from $500 ? $20,000 for each instance of nonwillful infringement, but which can escalate to $100,000 for each instance of willful copyright infringement. Attorneys' fees are also recoverable by a successful copyright infringement plaintiff.

A separate federal law, The Lanham Act, prohibits use of Marvel's famous, federally registered MARVEL, SPIDER-MAN, and WOLVERINE trademarks, among others, without permission. 15 U.S.C. §1125 of The Lanham Act also prohibits unfair competition and false designation of origin, as do state common law. The Lanham Act provides for treble damages and attorneys' fees in instances of willful trademark infringement, as well as disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief.

Given the blatant bad faith evidenced by skindex.net, Marvel hereby demands your written confirmation that skindex.net has (1) removed all Marvel intellectual property and references to Marvel intellectual property from its website or any other site (or other location); (2) abandoned all unauthorized copying and distribution of the the Marvel intellectual property and (3) agreed to cease and desist from any and all other acts of unfair competition with Marvel.

Given the apparent willful nature of your actions, Marvel demands that skindex.net disclose all of its activities with respect to its use of Marvel's properties, including but not limited to all sales or distribution of any products bearing any Marvel intellectual property, the names and contact information for all companies that have purchased or downloaded those items, as well as the addresses of any other websites where the infringing properties have been posted. In addition, skindex.net must disgorge ally and all profits illegally made from its use of Marvel's property and enter into a permanent injunction in which it agrees never to infringe Marvel's property again.

If skindex,net fails to provide this written confirmation by June 20, 2003, Marvel is prepared immediately to take all appropriate action to protect its valuable intellectual property rights, which may include seeking an injunction against further infringement, monetary damages, the cost of corrective advertising, and Marvel's costs and attorneys' fees.

This letter is written without prejudice to any of Marvel's rights or remedies, all of which are expressly reserved

Very truly yours,

Eli Bard

cc: Allen S. Lipson, Esq.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

It's yet another power grab by corporations motivated entirely by greed, and an attack on freedom of expression, in my opinion.

As long as you aren't selling, it shouldn't be illegal. If that's not the law, then the law should be unconstitutional.

PvK

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

I got a letter regarding violating Paramounts Copyright a long time ago and my old Angel Fire site was shut down.

Now I make my own ships. When I followed up on the letter I recieved I was informed that it did not come from Paramount, and that as far as Paramount was concerned, fan sites that do not profit from copyrighted materials based upon Star Trek are of no concern to them. They in fact wished me luck on my web site. Paramount understands that if not for the fans who dedicate literally thousands of hours on fan based projects, large companies like Marvel and Paramount wouldn't have the fan base they currently enjoy.

I believe Kwok was aware of this so he too wanted to use all original works in his mod just to avoid problems.

[ June 18, 2003, 20:16: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

Atrocities & Rojero:
The reason companies go after copyright violations so ruthlessly is so that they can keep having exclusive control when it comes to the paid market. If they don't go after small violations when it comes to their attention, then a clever person making a larger violation has a form of precedent when it comes to court, which can cause them to win the case, despite the fact that the large violation is selling while the small ones weren't.

In order to stop such things from happening, all you need to do is write a (certified) letter to the company holding copyright explaining your non-profit intent and asking permission, and wait for their response. However, you do need to keep the response in a safety deposit box somewhere, as the companies contract out defense of their copyrights, and the company doesn't always totally inform their sub-contractors. Once you have permission in writing, you are licensed, and the precedent issue goes away for the company.

PvK:
It can hurt a business severly if someone is freely distributing stuff that is closely related to the product the business is selling. That is actually part of the reason for patent and copyright laws; it helps protect the little businesses. Suppose, for instance, that company X produces a new (copyrighted/patented) software algorythm that allows an OS to intelligently adapt to a new situation invisibly. Now, suppose Microsoft feels threatened by this, steals the algorythm, and starts distributing it free of charge. Microsoft is big, and can absorb the loss. X is not, and can't compete. Once X goes out of business, Microsoft can buy and use or suppress the algorythm. Copyright and patent law helps to prevent this. It used to be that patents expired after 20 years and copyrights after 75 - but I have heard that has changed recently.

As for unconstitutional: The constitution actually makes specific allowance for copyrights and patents:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Further, the freedom of expression you refer to isn't directly in the constitution - that is an interpertaition based on the first amendment:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It refers to freedom of speech and the press, not images et cetera; not expression.

[ June 18, 2003, 21:21: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

What most people do not understand is that it is illegal to use someone else's intellectual property without permission, even if you do not make a profit from it.

This is what I would call a typical unenforceable law - fans can reproduce and distribute corporate IP an order of magnitude faster than the corporate lawyers can track them and shut them down. Paramount, for one, seems to understand this. If other corporations don't, well, they have the law on their side. Shut down your site and move on, they probably won't keep after you if you stop distributing their IP.

If, on the other hand, you were making a profit off their IP, then you are a full-fledged IP pirate and things could get ugly. So don't.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

Erax: Only one order of magnitude? I thought it was two or three...

[ June 18, 2003, 21:24: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

Yes, it might be two or three now that you mention it. Information travels at the speed of light, after all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh ya like this has ever happened. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I said helps to prevent, not prevents.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem is that “for limited times” has become a defacto “for all time”. When that limited time expired, works were supposed to enter the public domain. This is not occurring anymore. Congress regularly extends the period of copyright, so essentially nothing has entered the public domain from this process since the late 1940’s. Congress does this in response to lobbyists working on the behalf of the uber media corporations. This corrupts the balance between author’s rights and the public good. FYI: The USA is very unique in its view of copyright. Other countries have author’s rights traditions and are not particularly concerned about an abstract public good.

[ June 18, 2003, 22:21: Message edited by: geckomlis ]

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, I know - unfortunately, the constitution has been "interperted" out of much of its meaning on many different issues. However, it is still useful to bring it up every now and then.

Also, it's not just congress - before anything becomes law, the senate must also pass any such thing, and the president must abstain from vetoing it - Further, the Supreme Court is the body that rules on wether a law is unconstitutional or not, and are the offical interperters of law, and they haven't been keeping quite as close to the original constitution as I might like.

[ June 19, 2003, 00:15: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I said helps to prevent, not prevents.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sorry Jack, I was not being rude, just facetious. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And thank you for the information you've posted. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ June 18, 2003, 22:16: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That works - sorry for misinterperting your intent. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not a problem.

[ June 18, 2003, 22:18: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

Geckomlis - I edited my response to your post in response to you editing your post.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It used to be that patents expired after 20 years and copyrights after 75 - but I have heard that has changed recently.

As for unconstitutional: The constitution actually makes specific allowance for copyrights and patents: <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So does it mean that batman and superman are already public domain?
the whole issue was about just making skins, but I would think if it is common knowledge like that it would be ok, and most sites that I know of really are for non profit

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you for editing your post. My original post was the result of an accidental "Add Reply" instead of the intended "Preview Post". It happens.

I agree that it is not just Congress (which includes the House and the Senate) making copyright eternal. My post was meant to be informative rather than argumentative. My opinion is simply that the balance has swung towards author’s rights in the United States. I have no opinion as to whether this is good or evil.

Gecko

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Mhmm. But in the case of fan art, the corporations waving legal threats are not little businesses, and the fan art is not competing with the corporations' business in any signifigant way. Fan art is in fact a promotion, celebration, and endorsement of the product. Moreover, private citizens should have the right to mention and produce non-commercial images or even duplicates of commercial media. If they can't, then you're very close to prohibiting things like parody or even discussion of corporate media. With even small children participating in discussions by means such as web pages etc., digital images have become a very common form of expression. Trying to make it illegal for the sake of paranoid corporations' intellectual property-mongering is preposterous and well, evil.

Quote:

Suppose, for instance, that company X produces a new (copyrighted/patented) software algorythm that allows an OS to intelligently adapt to a new situation invisibly. Now, suppose Microsoft feels threatened by this, steals the algorythm, and starts distributing it free of charge. Microsoft is big, and can absorb the loss. X is not, and can't compete. Once X goes out of business, Microsoft can buy and use or suppress the algorythm. Copyright and patent law helps to prevent this.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
That's a very different kind of thing from fan art.

For one thing, you're talking about a patent of an algorythm. In many cases, the patent office grants patents for ideas which are something anyone can thing of by considering the problem, so that whole institution is in need of complete reworking.

For another, you're talking about a megacorporation as the perp, not a private citizen.

Megacorps will of course succeed in perpetuating their ownership of anything they can get their hands on, for as long as they can get away with it. I wonder how long it will take for another system to replace it. Clearly it's awfully inefficient to have us designing hardware and software and lawsuits all for the purpose of limiting everyone's access to media, when the technology to freely share all of it is already in place. There needs to be another system developed for rewarding content creators, which allows creative people to earn a living while still making their content available for free distribution.

PvK

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lack of monetary compensation cannot become a defense. I know of people who would copy someone else's work and hand the copies out for free, solely because they can ... thus denying the copyright holder their rightful income from the production and distribution of that work.

That is the very sort of thing copyright law is supposed to address.

While I do disagree with the indefinite extension of copyright, I also cannot agree with "no profit, no foul" fallacies.

That is not a matter of a power grab (the letter from Marvel, below) ... it's a matter of law: if marvel DOESN'T actively and aggressively protect it's trademarks and associated intellectual property, they lose them. Marvel exists to profit form selling stories and other products based on that intellectual property.

Take the recent X-Men films; if copies and derivations (etc) could be made and distributed for free and without penalty by persons OTHER than those who made the films and/or own rights to the intellectual properties with which the films were told, then, the films would never have been made.

MOST films owuldn't get made, nor would most books be published. It's a business, and it's about profit. Just like the inventor of a new machine should profit from his or her creation, the creator of a new piece of intellectual property should be able to do likewise.

Put it in perspective WRT SE4: if anyone were allowed to hand out copies of SE4, without Aaron seeing a penny, and with him unable to seek any sort of legal intervention ...

... then SE would probably never have happened, let alone be onthe FOURTH Version. The man has to put food on his table, after all.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You just about said it all. But no one has come forward with such a system. Many people have tried and many more are still trying. But while we are not yet there we are, well, here, where the law is quite harsh but also ultimately unenforceable.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I mentioned, this has changed recently (I believe it has finally been extended to infinity, but I don't have a source on that, and may be recalling incorrectly). A 1910 Version might be; however, the comic industry slowly changes the character concept and images over time; the Batman and Superman of today aren't the Batman and Superman of 1910. There may be similarities, but they aren't the same. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is a simple solution: ask the copyright holders for permission (in writing), describing your methods and intent. They will often grant you a license for non-commercial use, but not always. It is up to them to determine if your production of skins is going to hurt their market position or not.

[ June 19, 2003, 00:19: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps - but at present, there is no known way of making the one work (protection of the little business) without causing the other (protection of the big buisiness, often when it isn't really needed). <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really - is is surprisingly easy to discuss the issues without recreating copyrighted media. For example, has anyone felt the need to post a dipiction of Superman to get the conversation going? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps - but it is the same rules that protect the little guy that allow for the paranoia. The system works much better when things expire after a time. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only in specifics, not in effect. You want a fan art Version? Fine. Suppose Alice makes a comic named Zoe, which becomes a commercial success. Then Bruce produces a mod for SEIV based on Zoe that everyone loves. Due to this mod, SEIV doubles its revenue (we can dream, can't we?). Unfortunately, the Zoe fans who would be buying Zoe merchandise are now spending considerable sums on SEIV, reducing the amount Alice recieves. Totally unknown to Bruce, he has reduced the rewards Alice gets for her hard work. Further, it is almost impossible to track how much effect this had. The only way to deal is to require permissions on such things.

Sure, copyrights and patents have problems, but so far it is just about the only model that seems to work out. Besides, with a private citizen loophole, Megacorps would be able to hire private citizens to do the distribution to the same effect. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The current system will Last until someone comes up with a demonstratably better system and can show that it is better, and either overthrow the megacorps or show them that the new system is in their best interests. However, this hasn't happened yet. The service based open-source model might be such a thing, but it has yet to pan out. We shall see.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

Really does anyone seriously believe that website had even the slightest negative financial implications for Marvel comics?? Seems pretty clear to me that the only reason that letter got written was because otherwise the lawyer would be out of a job.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not directly - but the way the laws are written, when it comes to Marvel's attention that a violation is happening, they either enforce the law or lose their rights to their stuff, which would mean someone else could use that website as a basis for posing serious financial difficulties for Marvel via abusing their characters. They have to prosecute (or get a cease-and-desist agreement from) anyone that doesn't first ask permission.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

Jack are you telling me that if Marvel comics is aware of a site like that one and does nothing about it they lose their copyright??

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

I believe so, or rather that most companies personalities on fandom maybe that of extreme control or very lax control. IE Paramount has not really done anything about all the Star Trek conventions except promote it, whereas the Marvel company have gone the other way

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I mentioned, this has changed recently (I believe it has finally been extended to infinity, but I don't have a source on that, and may be recalling incorrectly). A 1910 Version might be; however, the comic industry slowly changes the character concept and images over time; the Batman and Superman of today aren't the Batman and Superman of 1910. There may be similarities, but they aren't the same.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It hasn't quite reached infinity yet, but I don't doubt it will get closer around 2023. The "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" basically extended copyrights for twenty years. Since I don't really feel like summarizing, I'll just block quote an article describing the current law, and give the link for citation purposes. Wouldn't want to get sued for wrongful use of IP, after all... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That article also mentions how Disney will retain rights to several of its characters (including Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Goofy, etc.) for twenty more years. You see, they were about to enter the public domain. Of course, Disney was pushing very hard for this Act to be passed...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You just about said it all. But no one has come forward with such a system. Many people have tried and many more are still trying. But while we are not yet there we are, well, here, where the law is quite harsh but also ultimately unenforceable.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, there was a quite effective system for quite some time in Europe. The rich households would take in some writers, artists, and musicians, effectively sponsoring them. In other words, a "patron of the arts" was much more common. It was a status symbol to be able to support artists. However, it has now fallen on the masses to be patrons. And, frankly, most people couldn't care less... I don't blame them, either. Along with the shift to having the masses support art, the purpose of artistic ventures has increasingly been mass appeal. In effect, "Art for money's sake" instead of "Art for art's sake". Which, IMHO, is also why so much of what the American "entertainment industry" churns out... sucks. All the focus is on how to make more money, and no room for creativity and originality is left (ever wonder why there are so many sequels to crappy movies coming out, and crappy sequels coming out to ruin decent originals? or, why most songs you hear sound eerily similar?). Unfortunately, there aren't many among the wealthy that would be willing to be patrons of the arts anymore... profit is the only goal.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In such a case, Marvel effectively loses its right to a claim in later cases involving the originally breached copyrighted material where a lawyer can make a sufficiently solid case that the incidents are sufficiently similar; yes, the copyright doesn't go away in its entirety, but essentially that's the case.

Also, Marvel would have to be officially (proveably) aware of the breach for it to count.

Many companies contract out enforcement to other companies. In this way, they can claim in court that they were making an effort to enforce their rights, and any apparent inaction was really the result of the contracted company not fullfilling its obligations - it's a form of insurance.

However, in many cases you can get license to do non-commercial stuff with the simple expediant of writing a letter to the right person. This covers everyone's rear ends: you are licensed, so you aren't in violation of anything; you are licensed at the will of the company, so the company doesn't have legal issues with you doing stuff; you are producing the stuff, so people can't convincingly say that the company is choking creativity. They will likely toss several stipulations into the license (such as not putting the characters in positions that the company wouldn't put them in, and not selling the stuff, and that the company can terminate the license at any moment, on their whim) but they are unlikely to be too terribly restrictive in practice. Further, it doesn't need to be too terribly formal - if Atrocities recieved the word from Paramount in letter form saying that Paramount isn't concerned and wishing him luck on his web site, he could drop that off in a safe deposit box somewhere and merrily make Star-Trek ships to his heart's content.

Mind you, I am not a lawyer, and could be off on many of the details.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

most game licenses have a 'failure to enforce any clause is not a waiver' part.

yes, i read game licenses.
marvel was a aggresive in there letter, but within there right's.

[ June 19, 2003, 06:30: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, but that is precisely becuase under normal circumstances failure to enforce copyright when a violation is known is a waiver; otherwise that phrase would be leagally implicit, and not need mentioning.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

Any one here know what the S.B.A. is? If you don't and you have pirated software, you should consider finding out. They "do" inforce copyright laws especially for MS.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

What is SBA?

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I was talking about fan art, not piracy. Do you think fan art (i.e. mods and shipsets) are hurting SE4?

Even amateur movies modelled after existing commercial films mainly tend to promote and prolong interest in the commercial product - they don't reduce the sales of the product or its sequels.

PvK

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">SE4 was designed with mods and new shipsets in mind - it's part of the attraction, and probably part of the license, so no - besides, Mods + shipsets don't really qualify as fan art. Sure, it's art; sure, it's by fans; but making a shipset doesn't usually mean taking the stock ships and altering their pictures slightly, or redrawing the stock ships from different angles; it means making new ones, pretty much from scratch, or making significant alterations to the stock ships.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I don't think anyone smart and honest does. It's pretty clear to me that it has a positive effect, in any.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well there might be other bad reasons, but yes, this is one of them.

PvK

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps - but at present, there is no known way of making the one work (protection of the little business) without causing the other (protection of the big buisiness, often when it isn't really needed).
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure there is. Corporations used to require a government charter for permission to even exist. If it were explained to the people, I doubt that the people would vote for a decision that corporations should have the same rights as private citizens. Corporations should exist and operate based on benefiting mankind, and not on maximizing profit for shareholders, and therefore doing whatever profiteering they can get away with. Corporations should not be allowed to perpetuate copyrights, and persecute individuals based on their fan art. Fan art does not have to be treated as a threat to the (dubiously desirable) right of a corporation to monopolize commercial rights to an intellectual property.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really - is is surprisingly easy to discuss the issues without recreating copyrighted media. For example, has anyone felt the need to post a dipiction of Superman to get the conversation going?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal for me to post pictures of Superman. Who thinks it should be illegal for me to post pictures of Superman, besides a lawyer or a corporate sponsor?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only in specifics, not in effect. You want a fan art Version? Fine. Suppose Alice makes a comic named Zoe, which becomes a commercial success. Then Bruce produces a mod for SEIV based on Zoe that everyone loves. Due to this mod, SEIV doubles its revenue (we can dream, can't we?). Unfortunately, the Zoe fans who would be buying Zoe merchandise are now spending considerable sums on SEIV, reducing the amount Alice recieves. Totally unknown to Bruce, he has reduced the rewards Alice gets for her hard work. Further, it is almost impossible to track how much effect this had. The only way to deal is to require permissions on such things.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you really want to live in a society that is so concerned with ownership and greed that it would attempt to have its government determine and enforce exactly who owns the rights to every sale, even in such complicated situations?

Most importantly, the fan (Bruce) should be allowed to express himself and freely publish his work, without government interference or fear of megacorporate legal attacks.

Secondly, in your example, it seems pretty clear to me that Alice has done plenty well in your scenario, her future work will be more successful because of Bruce and Malfador/Shrapnel, and Malfador/Shrapnel deserves the extra profit for making SE4 a product which is capable of being used in this very enjoyable way!

Quote:

Sure, copyrights and patents have problems, but so far it is just about the only model that seems to work out.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mainly due to human inertial herd behavior, and powerful corporations dominating the economy and government to multiply their already-staggering control of wealth.

Quote:

Besides, with a private citizen loophole, Megacorps would be able to hire private citizens to do the distribution to the same effect.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mhmm, well there should be a million-dollar reward for ratting out megacorporations, the money for which comes from the guilty corporations. Also, more reason why corporations should be forced to work for beneficial purposes, and not just for maximizing their own profits.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The current system will Last until someone comes up with a demonstratably better system and can show that it is better, and either overthrow the megacorps or show them that the new system is in their best interests. However, this hasn't happened yet. The service based open-source model might be such a thing, but it has yet to pan out. We shall see.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep. Sigh.

PvK

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

"Also, more reason why corporations should be forced to work for beneficial purposes, and not just for maximizing their own profits."

Define how Shrapnel Games benifits mankind.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

[quote]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">which brings up the question of why other media doesn't have that.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By bringing Se4 and Se5 to light, of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I'll leave now...

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They enforce known breaches.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

Even if we are to accept the fact that Marvel may have been 'forced' by the letter of the law to take some action against that site there is no excuse for the tone of that letter. It was aggressive, offenisve and damn right rude. If Marvel treats all it's fans this way it may find them in short supply in the future. I know if I ever pick up a product with ideas to purchase it and see the name Marvel on it I will think of that letter and quite possibly put it back on the shelf.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

[quote]Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM: most game licenses have a 'failure to enforce any clause is not a waiver' part. yes, i read game licenses. {/QUOTE] Yes, but that is precisely becuase under normal circumstances failure to enforce copyright when a violation is known is a waiver; otherwise that phrase would be leagally implicit, and not need mentioning.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">which brings up the question of why other media doesn't have that.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well obviously if the lawyers spent 5 seconds and put in that clause they would lose all those big bucks they get from searching the net sending out those nasty letters to enforce their copyrights. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well I think Jack Simth answered this question but I think they real question should have been does that fan art involved in mods and shipsets hurt the shows they are modeled after? ie do the Trek mods hurt the Star Trek franchise or the B5 mod... I think the obvious answer to this is no. If fact, as has been mentioned, they are likely to have the opposite effect. As an example I recently joined a game as the Cardassian empire. A Star Trek race called the Breen is also in the game. Now I've never been a big STNG fan but I am now much more likely to watch the show if I new the Cardassians or Breen were in it.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">yes, but with that clause, they wouldn't have to enforce all of them.

the letter might be a form letter that is distributed without any thought to destination. they might not have been thinking of fan art when they made it.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There weren't near so many little buisnesses under that system - the crown picked a small number that thrived (pretty much on the crown's whim), and the rest were relegated to small shops - pretty much permanently. Further, the crown-selected buisnesses were essentially monopolies; they never needed to improve their product, and the only people they needed to keep happy was the royal family et all.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They might if the same decision also made for corporations to be subject to the same penalties - imagine how well a corp would behave if a significant slip up would cause, not a fine, but a total cease and desist order with frozen assets for five or ten years. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It isn't always corperations that have problems with others duplicating their work - I have read a fair number of Online rants from independant authors that were having the same problem, especially in cases where an upright character was put in compormising positions.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Superman? Maybe not. However, I have read a fair number of rants from Online artists who were having that exact problem, and were very annoyed by it.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That only works out so cleanly if the comic is long-term gold, rather than the short-term fad variety that is surprisingly common. For a long-term gold comic, it helps if the image gets out there; for the short-term variety, money needs to be harvested quickly, as there won't be more coming in after a short time. Meanwhile, Bruce's work that increases SEIV's sales is taking money out of Alice's pockets. Shouldn't it be up to Alice to decide which she gambles on?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So how do you propose to change human nature away from the herd mentality?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">At present, they aren't being forced, they are being coerced - charitable donations help to maximize their profits, so corps make them. There are many similar incentive programs, as well as many forbidden type things out there.

Besides, the United States of America is in the top five nations for per-capita creature comforts for the average person; part of that is due to the corporations' greed: they need to sell stuff better than their competiters, and to do that, they need to: Have a better product, make their advertising more entertaining, or make their product cheaper - any one of which can increase the creature comforts of the population (better product -> easier/faster/more effective -> more comfortable life; more entertaining advertising -> people are more entertained -> slightly better lives; cheaper product -> can spend more recources on other things -> slightly better lives).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yay - we actually have something we agree on.

[ June 20, 2003, 03:58: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

i think that advertising should be informative, and only entertaining enough to not be irritating.

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I won't define it. However it obviously entertains many people, and games like SE4 get people to think, be creative, develop skills, and communicate with each other. It also supports and distributes the work of independent game developers. I'd say SE4 does some very unique and valuable things in the art of interactive entertainment.

PvK

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

Jack Simth, sorry for not quoting, but it's too tedious.

For corporate charters, I was thinking of more recent US situations rather than British crown charters. In the 19th century, for example, corporations were formed to establish large companies for things like interstate railroad construction. They had to be approved by government to ensure they were doing something for the common good, and not forming an evil for-greed only monster like we have dominating today's economies. No doubt there was still plenty of corruption, but at least the power was theoretically in the hands of the public to deny the existence of large powerful organizations whose purpose is solely to maximize its own profit margin and power.

You suggested "a significant slip up would cause, not a fine, but a total cease and desist order with frozen assets for five or ten years." for corporations - sounds good to me.

"It isn't always corperations that have problems with others duplicating their work - I have read a fair number of Online rants from independant authors that were having the same problem, especially in cases where an upright character was put in compormising positions."
- You mean, taking someone else's fictional character, and creating fiction about it where it does perverse things or gets killed or whatever? That's an interesting question for society to decide if it wants to legislate against. I'd say it's pretty mean and insensitive to do so, but I'm not sure I'd want a law prohibiting it.

I agree there is an issue with people pretending other people's work is theirs. I just think the patent and copyright laws are unsatisfactory, and are abused by many lawyers and corporations. It's a tough question with a lot of grey areas, it seems to me. In the absence of a fair system, I'd rather freedom prevailed rather than unjust enforcement.

Regarding Alice's comic example, you wrote:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It seems to me you are trying to enforce a certain unnatural market situation. It's up to Alice and her publisher to exploit her own commercial success. If Bruce's SE4 mod makes a lot of money for SE4, that's an unrelated market, and a natural success due to SE4's wonderful mod-ability, which it fully deserves, and is a natural product of the gaming market. It would be a real shame to say that generic modable game engines need to be outlawed, in order to protect an unnatural monopoly on the right of private citizens to generate free fan shipsets or mods for a generic game engine!

It's very similar to what Intel, Microsoft, and media megacorps are trying to foist onto the computer and media recorder industries! Humans have developed technology which could allow everyone to quickly and freely share all digital media, but these corporations are trying to criminalize, monitor, and prevent the simple act of copying digital information. Microprocessors that are hard-wired to check every data copy for "digital rights", etc. It's an amazing power grab, but I don't think it can Last forever.

You asked:
"So how do you propose to change human nature away from the herd mentality?"

Through good education that teaches people to think for themselves and question trends rather than follow them.

Individually, by pointing stupid herd behavior out to the more intelligent and receptive members of the species, and resisting stupid herd behavior wherever possible.

You wrote:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How often are you entertained by American advertizing? How often is it mind-wrenching, moronic, inane, insulting, illiterate, vice-promoting, annoying-as-hell garbage? Hmm, how about software corps like Microslop and Harborg securing monopolies on their markets by tactics such as buying up creative smaller companies and then laying off their staff and making crap Versions of their products? How about McDonald's? How about corporate media? All vile crimes against goodness, if you ask me.

PvK

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's okay - I usually remove quotes of me anyway when I am replying. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's just government contracting, which the railroads needed to get the land to build the tracks on. If they'd had the money for it (and the land was for sale) they could have bought all the land they were building the tracks on and done it without a charter of any kind, which is why I figured that you meant the old European system. And actually, many types of buisness do require charters - in the form of licenses. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Which was exactly my point - if you make corporations count as people, then you need to adjust things slightly so that they are treated like people; a total cease and desist is very similar to a prison sentence; freezing their assests just prevents it from being a death sentence; apparently you just hadn't thought the implications of corps counting the same as private citizens through. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The modern copyright and patent system wouldn't be nearly as bad if there was a decent time cap on them. Of course, the only problem with "fair" or "decent" is that everyone has different definitions of them when it comes down to specific implementation. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I didn't say anything about outlawing SEIV; present law and rulings dictate that an object is leagal, not if it has no illeagal purpose, but if it has some leagal purpose, except for those things which are expressly outlawed (like crack). This is a small portion of the reason it is leagal to have butcher-knives in your kitchen. I was just trying to point out how Bruce could unintentionally hurt Alice by using her characters without her permission, which you had seemed to be denying was possible. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, that's someting different - they are trying very hard to reverse the above law+rulings on what makes an object leagal, changing it to "It must have no illegal purpose." Very different, and yes, an amazing power grab. It is actually quite leagle to make a backup copy of stuff you have a license to - you just aren't allowed to distribute them, modified or not, free or not, without totally transferring the license and all copies to a single recipient (many licenses prohibit trasfer). <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There have been a lot of people trying to design an education system that will do that for a long time; so far, they have had only very limited success with individuals that would likely have no problems with that in the first place. The other problem is that such attempts usually require a surprisingly small class size, which isn't going to happen until the school system gets considerably more funding. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I find it depends on which shows I'm watching, which channel I am watching them on, and what time of day it is. Try it during a good documentary (and note: I said good documentary). <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's what anti-trust laws are for; unfortunately, they aren't always enforced as diligently as they need to be. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem with corporate media is more a problem of a glut of channels; when there were only two or three channels available for any given area, there were only a few good show ideas a year, and so the bad ones tended to get thrown out. Now, you can pipe a few hundred channels into a household, but there are still only a few good show ideas a year. Unfortunately, it is surprisingly difficult to sort a good idea out from a bad idea beforehand, so the good ideas don't get the relative budget they desreve, and seldom get prime time. As for McDonalds, if people stop buying their food, they will eventually go away. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Am I correct in assuming that we both agree that cutting down on the amount of time patents and copyrights Last would help (though still not be perfect)?

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The thing is, fan art or no, SE4 or Star Wars ... it's all one thing: IP.

You cannot remove protections of intellectual property for "the Big Guys", wihtout similarly stripping those protectiosn form the LITTLE guys.

If you removed the concept of copyright, then what would stop someone else from changing one bloody color in the SE4 UI, then handing out copies for free ... taking away from Aaron's ability to make a living producing the game ... ?

And, knowing that could be done, why in the nine hells would anyone MAKE such a game, and devote so much of their lives to improving it ... ?

Re: Copywrite laws are they to vague?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The thing is, fan art or no, SE4 or Star Wars ... it's all one thing: IP.

You cannot remove protections of intellectual property for "the Big Guys", wihtout similarly stripping those protectiosn form the LITTLE guys.

If you removed the concept of copyright, then what would stop someone else from changing one bloody color in the SE4 UI, then handing out copies for free ... taking away from Aaron's ability to make a living producing the game ... ?

And, knowing that could be done, why in the nine hells would anyone MAKE such a game, and devote so much of their lives to improving it ... ?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never suggested removing the concept of copyright and not having anything to serve its good purposes.

What I do suggest though are that:

* Fan art shouldn't be a copyright violation nor any concern of any lawyers, to include Marvel characters in Dungeon Odyssey mods, or Star Trek ships in SE4 mods.

* The existing patent and copyright systems are flawed.

* Ideally and eventually, the existing systems will be replaced by something very different, because it's fundamentally silly and wasteful to not use computers and networks to do what they do with great and natural ease - duplicate and distribute data which, once we get over our ancient and corrupt economic and legal institutions, will allow us to use it to share all data with everyone freely. All that's required is a replacement for the corporate-dominated system of employment and intellectual property ownership, so that creative people can earn a reasonable wage by virtue of how much people appreciate their work, without a corporate monster devouring most of the profit and dictating what everyone creates.

PvK