Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[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.

[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.

[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.