Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Pax:
I will restate: there is absolutely NO action which is wholly unmotivated by greed. IOW, greed is a component of the motivation behind every action of every human being on the planet, past present or future -- either an instinctive greed, or a conscious one.

Note, ofc, that greed doesn't have to reflect only material acquisitiveness. If you do something "because it makes you feel good to help people" ... that good feeling is what you're greedy for; the more you can manage to get it, the more you will, until the cost exceeds the gain (IOW, until you bump into some other element of greed in your life).

As I said (paraphrase), an argument can be made that there is some amount of greed behind any given action; however, that does not necessarily mean that there is greed behind that action, nor does it mean that there is greed behind all actions. Also, as I said, this isn't exactly something that can be argued. In order to proove my side, it would require the ability to proove the full set of motivations behind some pure action (which is impossible at present). In order to proove your side, it would require the ability to proove the full set of motivations behind all actions (which is even more impossible at present). As I said, it is more of a philisophical position. Arguing and contradiction will go exactly nowhere.

[DavidG]

Greed:

n 1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (esp material wealth) than one needs or deserves 2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins)

Many actions do not fit the above definition. Eating a bowl of cereal in the morning is not greed. Eating 20 is.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Pax:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
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

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.

---

Ok, but that's not what I meant. I didn't mean you could replace my word "it" with "piracy" or "nuclear holocaust" - I was just talking about fan art. If someone wants to draw a picture of Spock and not make any money off it, I say that should be allowed, and I have zero sympathy for any imaginary damage done to Paramount Pictures Inc.. Nor should they be required to mount such attacks in order to preserve their rights.

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.

Well, in my opinion, even though you may be correct about the current legal situation, in my opinion, that's ridiculous. Fan art should not invalidate copyrights.

"Marvel exists to profit..." yeah well, I certainly don't feel much concern for the continued existence, let alone support, of organizations which "exist to profit". You do?

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.

Well again, you're talking about piracy, not fan art. I think there's a huge difference.

It may be true too that you're discussing practical legal reality under the current system, whereas I'm arguing what I think should ideally the the case.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by DavidG:
Greed:

n 1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (esp material wealth) than one needs or deserves 2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins)

Many actions do not fit the above definition. Eating a bowl of cereal in the morning is not greed. Eating 20 is.

Well, eating 20 bowls would be gluttony.

Greed would be having a million bucks, and buying all the cereal in your town so you can re-sell it to everyone for more than you paid for it, so you can have more than a million bucks. Some people might call that entrepreneurship, though.

Pax saying any action has elements of greed in it though, seem to me to be mistakenly thinking greed means simply the desire to improve one's position.

PvK

[ June 25, 2003, 20:36: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
Ok, but that's not what I meant. I didn't mean you could replace my word "it" with "piracy" or "nuclear holocaust" - I was just talking about fan art. If someone wants to draw a picture of Spock and not make any money off it, I say that should be allowed, and I have zero sympathy for any imaginary damage done to Paramount Pictures Inc.. Nor should they be required to mount such attacks in order to preserve their rights.

Paramount owns the likeness of Spok as IP -- either through copyright, or, trademark (and trademark is forever, as it should be).

What if Paramount wants to profit by selling depictions of the TOS crew (which in fact, they do) ... ? Someone out there, no matter how talented (or not), handing out free depictions thereof, prevents Paramount form properly and fairly profiting by their creation(s).

Well, in my opinion, even though you may be correct about the current legal situation, in my opinion, that's ridiculous. Fan art should not invalidate copyrights.

Under the law, there is no such thing as "fan art"; there are original works, derivative works, and unlawful copies or derivations thereof.

"Marvel exists to profit..." yeah well, I certainly don't feel much concern for the continued existence, let alone support, of organizations which "exist to profit". You do?

MM exists for profit; so does Shrapnel Games. I feel concern for their continued existance, and their continued support.

I happen to appreciate their products, as you also presumably do.

Well again, you're talking about piracy, not fan art. I think there's a huge difference.

Fan Art is a (minor) form of piracy, however. If you draw Bugs Bunny on a piece of paper, you have created a derivative work -- your work is not original, it is derived from the owned work of WB, Inc.

You do not have the right to photocopy that drawing and hand copies out; you do not own copyright on "your" derivative work, WB does.

It may be true too that you're discussing practical legal reality under the current system, whereas I'm arguing what I think should ideally the the case.

PvK

I think the current case would be fine, if __ things became true:

One, people started having some RESPECT for the concept of IP, and asked PERMISSION before displaying or distributing their fan art. Many companies would probably grant such permission -- look at how many offer "Fansite Webkits" to help people make fansites focussed on their IP look better ... and usually (if not always) offer the kits for FREE, one might add?

Two, character likenesses were redefined as "trademark" IP, and not "copyright" IP.

Three, the original constitutionally-mandated expiry dates were reinstated on copyright laws.

Those three things, taken together, would IMO render the system as close to workably perfect as humanly possible.

The first one is the one that's likely impossible ... it's the one that buts up against innate human greed and the "******* factor" alike.

But, it's a darned sight more achievable than your (IMO) blue-sky-fantasy ideas of honor systems and free exchange of data, etc.

[Will]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

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.

---

Jack, you're misunderstanding. If someone only modified SEIV by changing a menu color and distributing the work as their own, that does violate copyright. This doesn't mean changing parts of SEIV like this cannot be done; in fact, Aaron has made it quite easy to make these modifications, and the mods can be distributed independantly of the game. To distribute anything else as your own essentially is plagerism.

Using SEIV as an example, what I'm talking about would be someone writing a game similar to SEIV on their own. A programmer could mimic, reverse-engineer, the exact setup of SEIV (systems connected by warps and containing planets, ships to colonize, attack, etc, resources generated from colonies, research, intelligence, diplomacy), and as long as the programmer does not copy any of the individual parts of the game (this includes the copyrighted images, sounds, etc. in SEIV, those would have to be reproduced independantly), it is fine. Of course, in the process of creating the "clone", it will inevitably become a different thing from the original, as the clone author imparts its own personal style and biases to the clone.

You're trying to visualize a line where copyright ceases to cover a work, and are using examples to draw that line within distinct components of a work. If you must imagine a line, however, it should be seperating the work itself and its components, and the ideas behind them.

=0=

On the disscussion of the nature of greed, the philosophical meanings of motivation, et cetera...

I usually think of the arguement as "There is no action that is not, at least in part, affected by selfishness". If you look up greed or selfishness in a thesaurus, you'll see that they're synonyms... and for most people, the two words are completely interchangable. I think that there are no two people that speak the exact same language; there are vast similarities in the words and structure in what we call language, but subtle differences between each person's interpretations in different parts. For me, `greed' and `selfishness' carry pretty much the same definition; however, for me, `greed' is stronger form, with more negative connotations, while `selfishness' is a softer form with both negative connotations and connotations to practicality, which are positive. The result is: "There is no action that is not, at least in part, affected by greed" makes me think, `People are inherently evil', while "There is no action that is not, at least in part, affected by selfishness" makes me think `People tend to look after themselves first, but looking out for others is also a form of looking out for oneself'.

The point of whatever it was I just typed up there is -- every person has a slightly different take on the meaning of a word, so quit quibbling on the details

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Will:
Jack, you're misunderstanding. If someone only modified SEIV by changing a menu color and distributing the work as their own, that does violate copyright. This doesn't mean changing parts of SEIV like this cannot be done; in fact, Aaron has made it quite easy to make these modifications, and the mods can be distributed independantly of the game. To distribute anything else as your own essentially is plagerism.

No, I'm not confused; If you'll notice, I said "Simply saying no direct copies is insufficient; for example" (emphasis added). Another way of saying that would be to say that I found the definition you posted to be lacking. Further, I later said "[...] and that which you would not [like to be acceptable] (changing a menu color)?" - which also implies that I know it isn't what you are actually after. That was just an example to demonstrate a problem with things as you had worded them; you now appear to be saying that you didn't mean things exactly as they were posted, so that's fine.

Originally posted by Will:

Using SEIV as an example, what I'm talking about would be someone writing a game similar to SEIV on their own. A programmer could mimic, reverse-engineer, the exact setup of SEIV (systems connected by warps and containing planets, ships to colonize, attack, etc, resources generated from colonies, research, intelligence, diplomacy), and as long as the programmer does not copy any of the individual parts of the game (this includes the copyrighted images, sounds, etc. in SEIV, those would have to be reproduced independantly), it is fine. Of course, in the process of creating the "clone", it will inevitably become a different thing from the original, as the clone author imparts its own personal style and biases to the clone.

You're trying to visualize a line where copyright ceases to cover a work, and are using examples to draw that line within distinct components of a work. If you must imagine a line, however, it should be seperating the work itself and its components, and the ideas behind them.

They won't be inevitably measureably different (there are people who are that thourough and can suppress their own preferences). A copy made to be extremely similar for the user made in the fasion you describe and distributed freely by a malicious institution wanting to bring Aaron down would have a similar effect to just changing a menu color (especially if they took more time with the graphics, fixed the bugs people complain about on the forums, can accept the same data file format, and used it as an advertising gimmick to get people to come to their website (where they actually sell something else)). That would be a great tool for big corporations which wanted to drive little companies out of business.