Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[Pax]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Uh, Pax? I think I speak for more than myself when I say:

Where the HELL did that come from?

It's really very, very, unbelievably simple:

Just because a tool CAN do a thing, does not mean it is wise nor right to actually do that thing with a tool.

Ease of accomplishment is NOT justification for the deed itself.

I chose to illustrate that point in as shockingly glaring a way as I could -- by using PvK's words RE: the ease etc of free sharing of data via computer, only as applies to nuclear munitions. After all, it is about as easy for a nuclear munition (once constructed, ofc) to destroy a city, as it is for a computer to download a few score MB of mp3's.

And would take less time, if you didn't need ot ship the bomb to the target city.

[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
[QB]Yeah, you could just say that you disagree with the premise that it would be a good thing if everyone could have free access to all content.[/b]

I fully support the use of computers to facilitate the transfer of data within the bounds of reasonable law; reasonable in this case would be, fair protections for the rights and fonancial (or nonfinancial) interests of the creator of such data or content.

I suppose I overstated my cases about megacorporate evil, particularly if you happen to be someone who thinks megacorporations are good.

I hold a neutral stance on them, actually. I hold some corporations -- those with high community-minded standards, for example. Do the corporations do good works in order to "buy" that intangible but nonetheless incredibly valuable commodity known as "public good will" ... ? Well of course.

But seriously, do you care WHY a company might support, say ... children's hospitals and hostels? Isn't it enough that the corporation DOES so?

I.E., McDonald's and the Ronald McDonald House ... ?

A corporation, regardless of size, is never inherently evil -- nor good -- based solely on it's being a corporation that exists to generate profit for it's owner(s).

It is the actions of that corporation that defines it as a good, or bad, entity within our economy and society.

I've just seen plenty of examples, and to me the idea of most of the wealth and power being concentrated in organizations whose stated overriding purpose is to maximize their own wealth in any way they can come up with, satisfies my definition of evil.

It satisfies my definition of greed, but not evil.

The holocaust ... that was evil.

Squeezing every dreg of legal profit possible out of a product ... that's just greed.

I agree there are plenty of people (you used the word "***") who will try to steal other people's work for their own ends.

A friend calls this the "turd in the punchbowl" concept -- no matter how wonderful the punch is, it only takes one turd floating in it to ruin the whole thing.

It seems clear to me that megacorporations tend to institutionalize and legalize this behavior, for instance by buying up smaller companies for their intellectual property, and then laying off the staff, destroying their competition at the same time. However I don't agree that the existing copyright system (even with shorter time limits) is the best answer.

I think the best thing to do would be to extend Trademark status to characters in continual, renewed use (that would protect Superman and Batman as continued sources of income for DC Comics, for example -- and keep Mickey Mouse et al solidly in Disney hands).

Individual products -- films, shorts, music, etc -- shoudl have a corporate life of 75 to 100 years, or a private life of "creator's life + 25 years" ... and that's it.

The corporation gets a solid entury of profit out of something; an individual author or artist can know that their profitable products (if any, ofc) will continue to support their family after they die, even supporting newborn children until after their expected college graduation.

But you don't end up with "mine in perpetuity" issues.

The thing is, PvK, the ends you want to achieve cannot be reached by changing the law. I'm sorry, but, the law just can't do that. What you want would require massive social re-engineering; you would have to change the very fabric of society, and readjust what EVERYone thinks is right and wrong.

That's the work of generations ... if it's even humanly possible; social constructs tend to defy proactive engineering by we mere humans.

"Free all the information" looks good on paper. In reality ... it simply wouldn't work; too many people would simply decide the effort needed to produce a piece of (unprotected) artwork, given the almost-assuredly-low return on their investment of time, effort, and self.

Seriously -- do you think SE4 would be as good as it is, if Aaron had no guarantee that at least some money from the sale of SE4 would find it's way into his pocket? He'dhave to get and keep a "real" job, and SE would be relegated to a "project in his spare time" -- if it didn't get dropped altogether.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

legal does not always mean good or right. any action motivated purely by greed is close to evil, because greed, by it's nature, seeks to be unchecked and is evil. or in other words, you can't stick your hand in the fire without getting burned.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Pax:
There is absolutely no such thing, though, as an action wholly and completely unmotivated by greed, aside perhaps from autonomous reflex activities like breathing -- and even that, I bet, would be arguably motivated by a form of greed, at the cellular or biochemical level.

I would agree that there is no action for which an argument cannot be made that there is some amount of greed behind the action; I would not agree that there are no actions completely unmotivated by greed. This isn't exactly something that can be argued; it's more of a philisophical position, I suppose.

[Erax]

Greed is not, itself, evil. Rather, it is a motivation for evil. Most of us have some measure of greed, which is (usually) kept in check by our moral / ethical standards.

The conscious decision to violate those standards, motivated by greed, is evil.

Having a set of personal standards that is incompatible with the society you live in is also considered to be evil, although that is a separate debate in itself.

Edit : Wealthy people / corporations are often guilty of avarice, which is a different condition from greed. Greed involves amassing more wealth; avarice involves holding on to what you have even if you don't need / don't use it.

[ June 24, 2003, 12:20: Message edited by: Chief Engineer Erax ]

[Pax]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
legal does not always mean good or right. any action motivated purely by greed is close to evil, because greed, by it's nature, seeks to be unchecked and is evil. or in other words, you can't stick your hand in the fire without getting burned.

There is absolutely no such thing, though, as an action wholly and completely unmotivated by greed, aside perhaps from autonomous reflex activities like breathing -- and even that, I bet, would be arguably motivated by a form of greed, at the cellular or biochemical level.

[Will]

Originally posted by Pax:
Seriously -- do you think SE4 would be as good as it is, if Aaron had no guarantee that at least some money from the sale of SE4 would find it's way into his pocket? He'd have to get and keep a "real" job, and SE would be relegated to a "project in his spare time" -- if it didn't get dropped altogether.

Actually, Aaron did have a "real" day job until, IIRC, just before the release of SEIV Gold. The whole SE series was initially just a "labor of love" sort of thing, trying to make a game like Starfire (he has said that Starfire was his main inspiration in the series), and continually improve it and make it better. So, for something like seven or eight years, SE really was a "project in his spare time", which makes the games all the more remarkable to me. And this is also why SEIV Gold, DO, SE:SF, and SEV are coming out in quick succession; Aaron is VERY good at what he does, and the exposure he's gotten since Shrapnel picked up publishing duties has allowed him to quit his day job and work with (play with?) his games full time.

But, back to the topic of copyrights... Pax, it seems that you think PvK is advocating the removal of copyright entirely. At least that's how your arguements are sounding to me. But how I'm understanding PvK's position is that copyright is held in too broad a sense, which very often turns out to be a Bad Thing.

To go back to the original example, with the the character skins in the game, I don't think copyright should cover the Marvel characters in a case like this. The trademarks would cover it, yes, but not copyright. Copyright should be used to protect individual works, but should not be expanded to entire abstract concepts and ideas, as it often is. Examples: 20th Century Fox suing Universal saying that Battlestar Galactica is a copy of Star Wars; Nancy Stouffer suing J.K. Rowling because "Harry Potter" was somewhat similar to "Larry Potter", then J.K. Rowling suing Dmitry Yemets because "Tanya Grotter" was somewhat similar to "Harry Potter"; Pets.com suing "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" because Triumph the Insult Comic Dog is a dog puppet just like Pets.com's mascot. And I'm sure there are several more examples of absurd claims. If you took this view of copyright just a little farther, then SE4 is infringing on MoO's "copyright" on 4X games (or whichever was the 'first' 4X game). Or any manual on the C language is violating the copyright on K&R's original C manual, etc.

Fan art is an independant, creative work modeled off of some other work that the fan appreciates. To me, it just seems wrong that something that is not a direct copy be a violation of copyright, the right of a creator/copyright holder to determine how his/her/its individual works are duplicated and distributed. It does not give the creator/copyright holder the right to prevent the creation of any similar works.

[Rojero]

Just to lighten the mood a bit
Originally posted by PvK:
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.Another thought for you, turning your words above to another concept and end:

quote:it's fundamentally silly and wasteful to not use nuclear armaments and delivery systems to do what they do with great and natural ease - destroy cities and slay millions of innocents which, once we get over our respect for human life, will allow us to use it to obliterate all life on this planet. All that's required is a replacement for the instinctive system of morality, so that psychotic people can kill untold millions of people, without a single shred of guilt.

it's fundamentally silly and wasteful to not use men and women to do what they do with great and natural ease - to make love and multiply, respect for human sensitivity, which will allow us to use it to recreate all life on this planet. All that's required is a replacement for the instinctive system of sensuality, so that attractive and non-attractive people can have untold millions of couplings, without a single shred of guilt.



[ June 25, 2003, 06:04: Message edited by: Rojero ]

[Will]

Originally posted by Rojero:
Just to lighten the mood a bit

*snip*

it's fundamentally silly and wasteful to not use men and women to do what they do with great and natural ease - to make love and multiply, respect for human sensitivity, which will allow us to use it to recreate all life on this planet. All that's required is a replacement for the instinctive system of sensuality, so that attractive and non-attractive people can have untold millions of couplings, without a single shred of guilt.

ROTFLMAO!

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Will:
To me, it just seems wrong that something that is not a direct copy be a violation of copyright, the right of a creator/copyright holder to determine how his/her/its individual works are duplicated and distributed. It does not give the creator/copyright holder the right to prevent the creation of any similar works.

Simply saying no direct copies is insufficient; for example: what happens if someone changes the color on the menu for SEIV? It isn't a direct copy any longer, after all. However, it still has all the problems of a direct copy. Sure, something as independant as producing skins from Marvel characters as a mod for a game is far removed from simply changing a color on a menu. However, the main difference between the two is one of degree (granted, an extreme degree). Where do you draw the line between that which you would like to be acceptable (skins) and that which you would not (changing a menu color)? Any such line is arbitrary, and subject to interpertation.