Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Pax:
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.

It might actually be possible to get enough corporate support for that solution to make it through legislation.

Wait, no - you still couldn't make skins - the characters you are making skins of would be trademarked in perpetuity.

Interesting suggestion though.

[Baron Grazic]

What I don't understand about this discussion is why Marvel or their 'reprentatives' sent the letter in the first place, when on their web site is "The Freedom Force Webkit contains awesome assets to help you build your own fan site".

So they will help you build your own fansite but acording to the letter Rojero received, he "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".

Why the hell do they have the fan site web kit, if you can not use their images on the web?
If they have tools avaiable for people to use, they can't then claim that their images are copyrighted, can they?

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
What I don't understand about this discussion is why Marvel or their 'reprentatives' sent the letter in the first place, when on their web site is "The Freedom Force Webkit contains awesome assets to help you build your own fan site".

So they will help you build your own fansite but acording to the letter Rojero received, he "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".

Why the hell do they have the fan site web kit, if you can not use their images on the web?
If they have tools avaiable for people to use, they can't then claim that their images are copyrighted, can they?

Many companies contract out to another company to protect their intellectual property, and that company is sometimes (often?) overzealous in protecting that IP; I suspect this is the case with Marvel.

[Erax]

Here's another real-life IP issue : the company I work for purchases machine parts from a certain supplier (the only one in the country for those specific parts).

Our maintenance people would like to have the supplier's drawings for a few critical parts so they could measure them on arrival, to ensure that they will assemble correctly when needed.

The problem is that the drawings are the supplier's IP and they might not want to hand them over, no matter how many non-disclosure agreemeents we sign. The reason is that if those drawings get out, the market may be flooded with pirate parts and the damage to their business will be so extensive that it isn't worth the risk.

We are essentially paying for other people's crimes. There may be a solution but it won't be easy.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
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.

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).

[Pax]

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
What I don't understand about this discussion is why Marvel or their 'reprentatives' sent the letter in the first place, when on their web site is "The Freedom Force Webkit contains awesome assets to help you build your own fan site".

So they will help you build your own fansite but acording to the letter Rojero received, he "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".

Why the hell do they have the fan site web kit, if you can not use their images on the web?
If they have tools avaiable for people to use, they can't then claim that their images are copyrighted, can they?

I'm sure the SKINS wer enot in the fansite webkit, though. The webkit would contain a liscense -- at least implicit -- allowing the INCLUDED images to be used, without alterations beyond resizing to fit the website, as-is.

When you go beyond that liscense ... the whole thing can be revoked, and ALL your use of such images can become a problem -- even the ones used as-is from the website kit.

[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 ]