Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[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.

[PvK]

Corporations don't need to be able to own copyrights or trademarks indefinitely in order to profit from producing products, as long as no one else is allowed to sell (or give away) the majority of complete pieces of work that they actually produced.

Notice that plenty of money has been made by corporate media making films about history or pre-copyright literature. Also notice that much of the media produced by megacorps that is capitalizing on their monopoly of "intellectual property" turns out to be really bad, usually because the corp only cares about cashing in to the max, sees it has a monopoly on something popular, and decides to minimize the production quality precisely because its overriding purpose is to maximize profit.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by Pax:

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

Unless I'm mistaken, Gene Roddenberry invented Spock, and he died. I'd say it would be fine if humanity could inherit the right to use his literature without fighting about who first invested in the rights to use it decades ago. The absence of copyrights on pre-(c)/pre-TM literature isn't causing problems, and megacorps continue to profit from using such creations, even though I still don't agree that megacorp profits are something to try to protect. After all, they only exist to increase their own wealth and power, so they can continue to do the same thing, until they own it all, or as much as they can get away with - megalomania without the megalomaniac.

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).

Untrue. Handing out my own Versions of TOS characters will have little or no impact, and might even help, Paramount sell their own junk based on Roddenberry's work. Big deal.

quote:

---

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.

---

You're playing definition games, and I'm not really interested in the particulars of actual legal definitions. If fan art is illegal and a threat to corporations under the current laws, then I think the current laws are ridiculous.

quote:

---

"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.

---

I disagree. I would say, from what I have read of Shrapnel and MM's publications about their work (q.v. on this web site) and their goals, is that they exist because they want to publish and develop the kinds of games that they really like, and be able to avoid working for a megacorp doing uninteresting junk to maximize profits.

If maximizing their profits were their reason for existence, they'd work in a different field, or concentrate on mass marketting trendy crap or trying to make a mega-hit, like the megacorps do.

quote:

---

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.

---

I think that's a bad thing.

Bugs Bunny is the creation of Chuck Jones, who I believe died Last year (according to this article). Recent Bugs Bunny cartoons may be the work of wage slaves, well-paid minions, or computers of WB, Inc., but why is that system a good one? If I want to draw Buggs and xerox it, I'm not going to do anything negative to WB, Inc., from a realistic non-twisted-legal standpoint. I'd probably have a positive effect by reminding people of something WB sells. If that's defined as piracy, then it's just another abuse of the English language by legal texts. If I wanted to argue about stupid legal definitions, I might have been a lawyer... eeeew.

quote:

---

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.

---

Mainly because so many people just herd along without questioning the status quo, and buy into the existing system. Kind of like the Brobroba (sp? - OOPS! TM INFRIGNEMENT! $5000 dollar fine!) States, who refuse to believe in the existence of Warp Points.

PvK

[ June 26, 2003, 20:15: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Will]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
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.

Well, I had a response written for your post, but I seemed to have hit "Add Reply" about five minutes after the forums went all narcoleptic... so my response essentially went *POOF!*.

The gist of it: I never said you were confused, I said you were misunderstanding what I posted. Confused would be the recipient having reduced mental faculties (I would consider saying confused in that situation unwarranted and an insult). Misunderstanding is a problem in the act of communication (and has absolutely no malice behind it), something being lost in the translation, so to speak.

To attempt to rehash my position on the limits to be put on copyright (not even going to touch trademarks or patents here, that's a completely different 900-pound purple gorilla): Copyright should protect against what is commonly accepted as plagerism, but nothing beyond that. That means that no significant portion of the copyright-protected work can be used by someone else. With the changing-menu-color example, that would violate copyrights because the rest of the game most certainly constitutes "significant". However, if the game was reverse-engineered, and every piece of it was created independantly, taking nothing but inspiration from the original, then that does not violate the copyright. Another example: say a writer has a terrible case of writers block. The writer comes across a short story done by someone else, and begins writing with the story as a model; the writer doesn't take a single sentance fragment from the original, but does use the same characters (with different names), plot, setting, etc. That, in my view, is more than a bit unoriginal, but should not violate copyright... the writer's story is its own, nothing tangible was taken from the "original". (As a side note, I would personally think it proper to let the "original's" author and any readers know about the source of the story idea, but I don't think that should be mandated by copyright law).

Also, there should be leeway given for personal use. There is already some in the current laws, but certain Groups are trying their damnedest to remove all personal copying. I think it's perfectly acceptable to do things like: make a backup copy of a CD, photocopy a poem and stick it on your wall, take a hex editor to SEIV and change menu colors (not to distribute, mind you!), multiple installations of software (several people on this board have more than one installation of SEIV on their computer), copy a DVD onto a VHS cassette so you can watch it with the VCR in the other room, etc. Not only are these legitimate uses in my view, but if copyright holders actually bother trying to collect payment for things so utterly trivial, then they seriously need to be institutionalized.

[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
Unless I'm mistaken, Gene Roddenberry invented Spock, and he died. I'd say it would be fine if humanity could inherit the right to use his literature without fighting about who first invested in the rights to use it decades ago. The absence of copyrights on pre-(c)/pre-TM literature isn't causing problems, and megacorps continue to profit from using such creations, even though I still don't agree that megacorp profits are something to try to protect. After all, they only exist to increase their own wealth and power, so they can continue to do the same thing, until they own it all, or as much as they can get away with - megalomania without the megalomaniac.

Roddenberry invented the idea of the Trek series, and pitched it to Paramount. Have you seen "The Glass Menagerie" ... ? The bits they watch in recording form, was the idea Roddenberry made and pitched to Paramount, and was the original pilot (re-used to make TGM itself).

Obviously, many changes happened -- the Spock character underwent significant changes, taking the place of the then-female first officer.

Ergo, the character of Spock as we know him, was created by Roddenberry while he worked under contract to Paramount. Thus, he was acting as an agent of Paramount, so, Paramount has reasonable and fair claim on Spock, the character, as IP. This is in terms of logic, reasonable common sense, and not under the especial light of the law itself.

[quote] Untrue. Handing out my own Versions of TOS characters will have little or no impact, and might even help, Paramount sell their own junk based on Roddenberry's work. Big deal.[quote]

Really? When people can get something for free (your pics), why should they pay for almost-the-same-thing (Paramount's pics) ... ?

Your free pics have denied Paramount potential sales based on their properties.

[quote][b] You're playing definition games, and I'm not really interested in the particulars of actual legal definitions. If fan art is illegal and a threat to corporations under the current laws, then I think the current laws are ridiculous.[quote]

And I think they're not. I think it IS important to stress, under the law, that if you take, for example, the characters and setting of Star Wars, and write novels that put them in situations and crises which George Lucas disapproves of, Lucas should have EVERY RIGHT to say "those are MY characters, that's MY setting, and you don't have permission to use them! Cease and desist!"

And the law should back him up on that.

Yet your story might have been intended as true fan art; perhaps you felt your stories owuld "add to the Star Wars legacy" in a positive way.

Star Wars doesn't belong to you, though, so you have no right -- and should have no right -- to make that decision.

FWIW, Lucas is still alive, and "life +25 years" would still cover all of SW.

[qb] I disagree. I would say, from what I have read of Shrapnel and MM's publications about their work (q.v. on this web site) and their goals, is that they exist because they want to publish and develop the kinds of games that they really like, and be able to avoid working for a megacorp doing uninteresting junk to maximize profits.

"they exist because they want to publish and develop the kinds of games that they really like," ... and make a profit doing so.

Without profit, after all, they can't avoid the "work for a megacorp" bit.

If maximizing their profits were their reason for existence,

Did I say maxxing profit? No. Did I ever even imply it was their ONLY reason to exist? No.

Rare, IMO, is the corporation that truly DOES exist solely for profit's own sake. Even Micro$haft has other motives, at some levels of the hierarchy at least.

I think that's a bad thing.

Bugs Bunny is the creation of Chuck Jones, who I believe died Last year

Then the copyright should be running for ... 24 more years (life of author/creator plus 25 years). Your point is?

Recent Bugs Bunny cartoons may be the work of wage slaves, well-paid minions, or computers of WB, Inc., but why is that system a good one? If I want to draw Buggs and xerox it, I'm not going to do anything negative to WB, Inc., from a realistic non-twisted-legal standpoint.

In terms of copyright, it's not far form making a picture and xeroxing it, and making a home-done animated short and broadcasting it -- over the internet, perhaps.

Copyright relates to the rights to make ABSOLUTELY ANY KIND of copy. Period.

[quote]I'd probably have a positive effect by reminding people of something WB sells. If that's defined as piracy, then it's just another abuse of the English language by legal texts. If I wanted to argue about stupid legal definitions, I might have been a lawyer... eeeew. [qb][quote]

The law defines what you describe as an infringement; "piracy" is a common-usage term applied by people OUTSIDE the legal profession.

[qb]Mainly because so many people just herd along without questioning the status quo, and buy into the existing system. Kind of like the Brobroba (sp? - OOPS! TM INFRIGNEMENT! $5000 dollar fine!) States, who refuse to believe in the existence of Warp Points.

PvK

PvK -- that behavior is evolved into us. Youw ant to change that -- prove there is a god, and take it up with her.

I find your blue-sky wishful thinking to be of no use in the real world. Sure, it'd be NICE if artists just kinda got PAID, commensurate with the appreciation of their work by society-at-large;; it'd be NICE if noone stole form anyoen else.

But being nice doesn't make something possible. We live in a world where people lie, cheat, and steal.

As a result, we need laws that provide legal redress AGAINST those who have lied, cheated, and stolen.

Blue-sky wishful thinking won't change reality, no matter HOW hard you try to malign the corporate aspect of capitalism.

Speaking of capitalism -- you wouldn't happen to be a socialist or communist, would you? Because you sure as hell sound like one!

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Will:
Well, I had a response written for your post, but I seemed to have hit "Add Reply" about five minutes after the forums went all narcoleptic... so my response essentially went *POOF!*.

Been there - a lot. I've taken to using the clipboard and notepad to save my larger Posts before actually posting them to prevent just that.

Originally posted by Will:

The gist of it: I never said you were confused, I said you were misunderstanding what I posted. Confused would be the recipient having reduced mental faculties (I would consider saying confused in that situation unwarranted and an insult). Misunderstanding is a problem in the act of communication (and has absolutely no malice behind it), something being lost in the translation, so to speak.

You're right; you did say misunderstanding. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Will:

To attempt to rehash my position on the limits to be put on copyright (not even going to touch trademarks or patents here, that's a completely different 900-pound purple gorilla): Copyright should protect against what is commonly accepted as plagerism, but nothing beyond that. That means that no significant portion of the copyright-protected work can be used by someone else. With the changing-menu-color example, that would violate copyrights because the rest of the game most certainly constitutes "significant". However, if the game was reverse-engineered, and every piece of it was created independantly, taking nothing but inspiration from the original, then that does not violate the copyright.

You are talking about "should not," correct? Such an implementation would pretty much only benefit the big corporations; if a small-time develper produces something, the big corporation could throw a million at it to duplicate it from scratch, then throw a few more million to advertise it, and pretty soon everyone is buying the big corporation's Version, forgetting where it came from, even though it is exactly like the original. A very large portion of the time spent developing a game is put into the design work; having the original as the design would eliminate most of that phase. A perfect clone could be put out, and even take over, in perhaps six months. Then, the creator of the original goes bankrupt, unable to compete with the corporation. The megacorps would love to be able to do that; it would be the perfect tool for driving small competiters out of business; reverse-engeneer everything they put out and distribute it for free. While driving the small competitor out of business, the megacorp can absorb the loss (they absorb the loss from most of the software they put out anyway - a few more aren't going to hurt them). After, the megacorp can mop up the market.

Originally posted by Will:
Another example: say a writer has a terrible case of writers block. The writer comes across a short story done by someone else, and begins writing with the story as a model; the writer doesn't take a single sentance fragment from the original, but does use the same characters (with different names), plot, setting, etc. That, in my view, is more than a bit unoriginal, but should not violate copyright... the writer's story is its own, nothing tangible was taken from the "original". (As a side note, I would personally think it proper to let the "original's" author and any readers know about the source of the story idea, but I don't think that should be mandated by copyright law).

That is different from the case of copying software from scratch; with the case of a story, it is the wording that is important for copyright issues (as that is what the user sees), especially considering that most ideas in print have their roots in other ideas in print. Using not one scrap of the originals wording will invariably produce a vastly different story. With the case of software, it is possible to completely duplicate something without the source code and without duplicating the binary. However, the design (which would be duplicated in your case) isn't dependant on any specific bit of code being done in a particular fashion (barring the standard things to deal with the hardware and OS that virtually every program for a particular hardware/OS combination use, of course).

Originally posted by Will:

Also, there should be leeway given for personal use. There is already some in the current laws, but certain Groups are trying their damnedest to remove all personal copying. I think it's perfectly acceptable to do things like: make a backup copy of a CD, photocopy a poem and stick it on your wall, take a hex editor to SEIV and change menu colors (not to distribute, mind you!), multiple installations of software (several people on this board have more than one installation of SEIV on their computer), copy a DVD onto a VHS cassette so you can watch it with the VCR in the other room, etc. Not only are these legitimate uses in my view, but if copyright holders actually bother trying to collect payment for things so utterly trivial, then they seriously need to be institutionalized.

Most of those actually are legal at this point for private individuals: backups (if not distributed), medium conVersions (this one covers both the poem-on-the-wall and DVD-to-VHS); however, multiple installations and editing the finished product aren't. No-multiple installations can be programmatically enforced reasonably well, and has some reasonable correlation with solid products - if you wanted to use a toaster in five different locations, you would either need to buy more toasters or carry one of them around with you and plug/unplug it every time.

But yes, trying to make those legal ones illegal is quite the power grab.

[Erax]

Blue-sky wishful thinking won't change reality, no matter HOW hard you try to malign the corporate aspect of capitalism.

Pax, I'm going to pull a Pax on you (in a friendly way, no offense intended) :

I can imagine someone in America around, say, 1770, defending King George this way :

Blue-sky wishful thinking won't change reality, no matter HOW hard you try to malign the tyrannical aspect of monarchy.

[Erax]

Posted by Will :

say a writer has a terrible case of writers block. The writer comes across a short story done by someone else, and begins writing with the story as a model; the writer doesn't take a single sentance fragment from the original, but does use the same characters (with different names), plot, setting, etc. That, in my view, is more than a bit unoriginal, but should not violate copyright... the writer's story is its own, nothing tangible was taken from the "original". (As a side note, I would personally think it proper to let the "original's" author and any readers know about the source of the story idea, but I don't think that should be mandated by copyright law).

That is essentially what I did in my story here in the forums in the June 19 post, although with me it wasn't a case of writer's block, I had been meaning to do that scene for about 20 days and had to move the story along until it was possible to insert it. And I mentioned the original work, encouraging people to go out and buy it.