Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:34:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 01:27:17 PMWhich isn't creating new IPs, it's using already existing ones.

There's only so many ideas to go around and it's human nature to recycle ideas when telling new stories. We don't tell stories in a vacuum, we can't. Can you think of a truly original IP that doesn't draw inspiration from previous stories? Can you think of a replacement for Star Wars that doesn't draw upon the extensive history of scifi? That can't be readily compared to the many scifi stories that already exist?

Again, you're conflating the idea with the execution of the idea:

Compare ERB's Barsoom series with his Venus series with The Planet of Peril series by Otis Adelbert Kline with Almuric by REH and countless other novels in the Sword & Planet genre.

Same idea, different execution.

What's stopping me from developing and publishing an RPG in that genre? NOTHING, as a matter of fact I'm doing so. What's stopping me from writing a novel based on my setting? The fact that I'm great at idea generation but shit at writing novels, I've tried.

It's more work than taking an existing setting and using it? You bet! It's also more rewarding.

IIRC several people in this forum have complained that we don't need another D&D clone, well people are developing their own settings and monsters and systems to publish those.

IIRC 50 shades started as fan fiction of one vampire IP or another, the author then took the time to expunge the fan fiction from it and made bank.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 01:53:46 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:34:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 01:27:17 PMWhich isn't creating new IPs, it's using already existing ones.

There's only so many ideas to go around and it's human nature to recycle ideas when telling new stories. We don't tell stories in a vacuum, we can't. Can you think of a truly original IP that doesn't draw inspiration from previous stories? Can you think of a replacement for Star Wars that doesn't draw upon the extensive history of scifi? That can't be readily compared to the many scifi stories that already exist?

Again, you're conflating the idea with the execution of the idea:

Compare ERB's Barsoom series with his Venus series with The Planet of Peril series by Otis Adelbert Kline with Almuric by REH and countless other novels in the Sword & Planet genre.

Same idea, different execution.

What's stopping me from developing and publishing an RPG in that genre? NOTHING, as a matter of fact I'm doing so. What's stopping me from writing a novel based on my setting? The fact that I'm great at idea generation but shit at writing novels, I've tried.

It's more work than taking an existing setting and using it? You bet! It's also more rewarding.

IIRC several people in this forum have complained that we don't need another D&D clone, well people are developing their own settings and monsters and systems to publish those.

IIRC 50 shades started as fan fiction of one vampire IP or another, the author then took the time to expunge the fan fiction from it and made bank.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:34:31 PMBecause it would cause a huge clusterfuck? Intellectual property isn't a limited resource, it can be infinitely copied easily. It's not ownership as such, it's a restriction on free speech. It makes no sense to treat it the same way as physical limited property. Can you imagine how much of a clusterfuck we'd have now if mythology was copyrighted?

This is a worst-case problem that is easily solved. Simply require the copyright holder to continuously renew the copyright in perpetuity as long as they pay an fee to maintain it. Say $1,000 every 5 years after 25 years. For massive corporate franchises, this fee will be trivial. For less significant works, the owner will gain no value from renewing the copyright and the work will become public domain.

This way there is no arbitrary deadline which causes corporations to go through various legal tricks to protect their IP. They can pay to keep the ones they want and the public gets to use whatever is leftover.

Or, as has been pointed out, the public can just create new IP which is what best for culture anyway.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:34:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 01:27:17 PMWhich isn't creating new IPs, it's using already existing ones.

There's only so many ideas to go around and it's human nature to recycle ideas when telling new stories. We don't tell stories in a vacuum, we can't. Can you think of a truly original IP that doesn't draw inspiration from previous stories? Can you think of a replacement for Star Wars that doesn't draw upon the extensive history of scifi? That can't be readily compared to the many scifi stories that already exist?

As I pointed out, George Lucas faced the same issue when he tried to get the rights to make a Flash Gordon movie.

I can think of numerous sci fi IPs that were created because Star Wars was successful, but are distinct enough to not infringe on the IP. Buck Rogers (the one with Gil Gerard) and the original Battlestar Galactica, and Battle Beyond the Stars off the top of my head.

We also have the mockbuster phenomenon where cheap ass film companies makes near-clones of existing popular movies in an attempt to cash in on the popularity.

So this is a non-issue. Copyright law doesn't stop you from making the next Star Wars. Or Planet Dune. Or Transmorphers. Whether your creation is any good, whether you have the drive and talent to get into movie production and actually do it is up to you.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 29, 2024, 02:51:06 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:34:31 PMBecause it would cause a huge clusterfuck? Intellectual property isn't a limited resource, it can be infinitely copied easily. It's not ownership as such, it's a restriction on free speech. It makes no sense to treat it the same way as physical limited property. Can you imagine how much of a clusterfuck we'd have now if mythology was copyrighted?

This is a worst-case problem that is easily solved. Simply require the copyright holder to continuously renew the copyright in perpetuity as long as they pay an fee to maintain it. Say $1,000 every 5 years after 25 years. For massive corporate franchises, this fee will be trivial. For less significant works, the owner will gain no value from renewing the copyright and the work will become public domain.

This way there is no arbitrary deadline which causes corporations to go through various legal tricks to protect their IP. They can pay to keep the ones they want and the public gets to use whatever is leftover.

Or, as has been pointed out, the public can just create new IP which is what best for culture anyway.

Private property emanates from the right to life, to own yourself. Why would anyone agree that the government has any right to extort money (at perpetuity none the less) so others don't infringe on my rights to own myself?

QuotePrivate property emanates from the right to life, to own yourself. Why would anyone agree that the government has any right to extort money (at perpetuity none the less) so others don't infringe on my rights to own myself?

Because human rights does not exist objectively, but as legal constructs made by United Nations, and it's due to organisation maintaining legal constructs they are worth anything.

Quote from: Wrath of God on July 30, 2024, 07:10:57 AM

QuotePrivate property emanates from the right to life, to own yourself. Why would anyone agree that the government has any right to extort money (at perpetuity none the less) so others don't infringe on my rights to own myself?

Because human rights does not exist objectively, but as legal constructs made by United Nations, and it's due to organisation maintaining legal constructs they are worth anything.

That could be the most vile thing I've read in a long time.  If you actually believe that, you are, at best, dangerously amoral...

I'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

I'm bowing out. I've made my argument against long and perpetual copyright. If you don't find it convincing, then I'm not gonna keep trying.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 30, 2024, 09:43:49 AMI'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

I'm bowing out. I've made my argument against long and perpetual copyright. If you don't find it convincing, then I'm not gonna keep trying.

Stallman is a fanatic, seriously he's like the Taliban except he's not violent, but he's a fundamentalist of what HE believes to be true.

Let me demolish (again) his argument:

He claims there's no inherent right to the fruits of your labor as long as said labor is intellectual (be it artistic or otherwise).

This is a logical fallacy called special pleading, HE (and many others) is making an artificial distinction between different endeavors: Building a house/Creating and intellectual product

But, there's no actual difference, both require money, effort, time and talent/knowledge to achieve.

He, like all the people that bought into this idea, conflates the idea with the execution of the idea, but only for intellectual efforts.

I think he's wrong, and have provided my arguments and a sound logic to support them, I always get the same back:

"Muh Greater Good!"

OR

"Nuh Hu!"

Or in the case of Wrath of God the most disturbing thought that the right to life doesn't exist, that in a world without the ONU (ignoring the formulation predates it by a couple centuries at least) we would be not only able but morally justified to murder, enslave others without a second thought and without ANYBODY having a way to claim that what we did is wrong.

No, Enslaving, Murdering, Stealing, etc ARE wrong with and without the ONU, which is why TWO of those are sins since at least 4,000 years, and the first was (FINALLY) recognized as a morally abhorrent thing a few centuries back.

I'm shocked he said it aloud, not surprised he thinks so, he's an European, in that continent the ONLY nation IKO that doesn't think like that is the UK (It's people not it's government because of course) except for the commie scum in the Islands.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 30, 2024, 09:43:49 AMI'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

I'm bowing out. I've made my argument against long and perpetual copyright. If you don't find it convincing, then I'm not gonna keep trying.

I feel we've gone as far as we can and are starting to repeat ourselves on that tangent.

QuoteThat could be the most vile thing I've read in a long time.  If you actually believe that, you are, at best, dangerously amoral...

Oh, no I am not amoral, I just reject modern concept of human rights made by UN as any source of morality. It's political man-made construct, that's it.

QuoteOr in the case of Wrath of God the most disturbing thought that the right to life doesn't exist, that in a world without the ONU (ignoring the formulation predates it by a couple centuries at least) we would be not only able but morally justified to murder, enslave others without a second thought and without ANYBODY having a way to claim that what we did is wrong.

Ban on murder is not the same as right to live, and human rights based morality is distinct from one based on certain moral bans.

QuoteNo, Enslaving, Murdering, Stealing, etc ARE wrong with and without the ONU, which is why TWO of those are sins since at least 4,000 years, and the first was (FINALLY) recognized as a morally abhorrent thing a few centuries back.

Murdering and Stealing yes. Enslaving not so much - as Old Testament made distinct rules allowing slavery and defining it's limits - but very much allowing it, and New Testament is generally silent about matter, alas Saint Paul order slaves to obey masters within limits of God law (ergo not committing sins on masters behalf). Do with it what you want.

QuoteI'm shocked he said it aloud, not surprised he thinks so, he's an European, in that continent the ONLY nation IKO that doesn't think like that is the UK (It's people not it's government because of course) except for the commie scum in the Islands.

Glad to admit you know as little of Europe as of Bible

Quote from: Wrath of God on August 04, 2024, 06:21:25 PM

QuoteThat could be the most vile thing I've read in a long time.  If you actually believe that, you are, at best, dangerously amoral...

Oh, no I am not amoral, I just reject modern concept of human rights made by UN as any source of morality. It's political man-made construct, that's it.

QuoteOr in the case of Wrath of God the most disturbing thought that the right to life doesn't exist, that in a world without the ONU (ignoring the formulation predates it by a couple centuries at least) we would be not only able but morally justified to murder, enslave others without a second thought and without ANYBODY having a way to claim that what we did is wrong.

Ban on murder is not the same as right to live, and human rights based morality is distinct from one based on certain moral bans.

QuoteNo, Enslaving, Murdering, Stealing, etc ARE wrong with and without the ONU, which is why TWO of those are sins since at least 4,000 years, and the first was (FINALLY) recognized as a morally abhorrent thing a few centuries back.

Murdering and Stealing yes. Enslaving not so much - as Old Testament made distinct rules allowing slavery and defining it's limits - but very much allowing it, and New Testament is generally silent about matter, alas Saint Paul order slaves to obey masters within limits of God law (ergo not committing sins on masters behalf). Do with it what you want.

QuoteI'm shocked he said it aloud, not surprised he thinks so, he's an European, in that continent the ONLY nation IKO that doesn't think like that is the UK (It's people not it's government because of course) except for the commie scum in the Islands.

Glad to admit you know as little of Europe as of Bible

Amoral, yes, that's what you are.

I don't need the ONU to assert those rights exist, as proven by them existing BEFORE the ONU.

You have it bass ackwards: We don't derive our morality from the ONU or the pre-existing rights you deny, we derive those rights you deny from our morality. But you, being an Amoral blob, wouldn't understand it.

So men aren't perfect ergo the Bible is wrong...

God created man in his image, from that we derive that all men are equal before God, and from that we derive that all men should be equal under the mortal's law.

Thou shall not murder, from that we derive that you have no right to unlawfully kill others, meaning those others don't belong to you, because there's no prohibition to kill YOUR livestock. Now, if you don't own others and those others don't own you... Who owns you?

I would leave that as an assignment for the pupil but I fear you lack the capacity to answer, so here it is: God owns your immortal soul, but in this world YOU own yourself.

Chew on that.

QuoteI don't need the ONU to assert those rights exist, as proven by them existing BEFORE the ONU.

No no one did it, aside of mere philosophical speculation of antiChristian deists.

QuoteYou have it bass ackwards: We don't derive our morality from the ONU or the pre-existing rights you deny, we derive those rights you deny from our morality. But you, being an Amoral blob, wouldn't understand it.

So men aren't perfect ergo the Bible is wrong...

Dude, are you deaf? Bible endorses certain forms of slavery. What it does not endorse is definitely American enlightened classical liberalism.

QuoteGod created man in his image, from that we derive that all men are equal before God, and from that we derive that all men should be equal under the mortal's law.

Which goes against basically all history of Christianity, but OK.
That's failed and nonsensical logic.

God clearly estabilished hierarchies among people, not equality.

QuoteThou shall not murder, from that we derive that you have no right to unlawfully kill others, meaning those others don't belong to you, because there's no prohibition to kill YOUR livestock. Now, if you don't own others and those others don't own you... Who owns you?

That is another nonsense.
Just alongside thou shall not murder, you have specific rules about slavery.
Which limits what ancient Israeli could do with slave, but still slave was his property. Because right of PROPERTY in Bible is not some absolute. And you wanna make it absolute just like right to live, which make another God decisions like waging aggresive war against Caanan nonsense in your dumb authistic exegesis.

There are no human rights - there are divine privileges limiting your actions.
That's why slave is property in Bible, but it's not cattle and you cannot butcher it - because your power over own property is not absolute.

And there are multiple numerous laws limiting use of own property even mundane one.

QuoteI would leave that as an assignment for the pupil but I fear you lack the capacity to answer, so here it is: God owns your immortal soul, but in this world YOU own yourself.

No I don't. God owns me here just as much as anywhere.
And if he put me into web of hierarchies to obey as Bible states in multiple times it's my duty to obey not to self-own myself.

Quote from: Wrath of God on August 05, 2024, 03:21:27 AM

QuoteI don't need the ONU to assert those rights exist, as proven by them existing BEFORE the ONU.

No no one did it, aside of mere philosophical speculation of antiChristian deists.

QuoteYou have it bass ackwards: We don't derive our morality from the ONU or the pre-existing rights you deny, we derive those rights you deny from our morality. But you, being an Amoral blob, wouldn't understand it.

So men aren't perfect ergo the Bible is wrong...

Dude, are you deaf? Bible endorses certain forms of slavery. What it does not endorse is definitely American enlightened classical liberalism.

QuoteGod created man in his image, from that we derive that all men are equal before God, and from that we derive that all men should be equal under the mortal's law.

Which goes against basically all history of Christianity, but OK.
That's failed and nonsensical logic.

God clearly estabilished hierarchies among people, not equality.

QuoteThou shall not murder, from that we derive that you have no right to unlawfully kill others, meaning those others don't belong to you, because there's no prohibition to kill YOUR livestock. Now, if you don't own others and those others don't own you... Who owns you?

That is another nonsense.
Just alongside thou shall not murder, you have specific rules about slavery.
Which limits what ancient Israeli could do with slave, but still slave was his property. Because right of PROPERTY in Bible is not some absolute. And you wanna make it absolute just like right to live, which make another God decisions like waging aggresive war against Caanan nonsense in your dumb authistic exegesis.

There are no human rights - there are divine privileges limiting your actions.
That's why slave is property in Bible, but it's not cattle and you cannot butcher it - because your power over own property is not absolute.

And there are multiple numerous laws limiting use of own property even mundane one.

QuoteI would leave that as an assignment for the pupil but I fear you lack the capacity to answer, so here it is: God owns your immortal soul, but in this world YOU own yourself.

No I don't. God owns me here just as much as anywhere.
And if he put me into web of hierarchies to obey as Bible states in multiple times it's my duty to obey not to self-own myself.

So you follow each and everyone of the 613 commandments in the old testament right?

QuoteSo you follow each and everyone of the 613 commandments in the old testament right?

Nope, as per Church Fathers canons I accept that moral rules of OT are correct, but purity and legal laws can be changed in Christendom. But since moral rules must be well moral - that means every commandment of OT was inherently moral, because there is no contradiction in God, and any philosophical interpretation - like whole Enlightenment human rights heresy - that try to prove otherwise is false.

(With slavery it's even easier because  Saint Paul calls for slave to obey, and not for abolition).