Discussion of copyright came up as a side topic in the thread "Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/another-hit-piece-against-dungeons-dragons/msg1232077/#msg1232077).
My premise there was that a position I had for changing copyright is that anyone should be able to create a retroclone of old-school RPGs published in the 1970s and 1980s without fear of being sued. Under current U.S. copyright law, those games will likely remain under copyright until at least 2070, which to me is crazy. I think copyright should be capped at something like 28 years (which was the original term of U.S. copyright including renewal). In current markets, it is much faster to publish and market a book than it was in the early 1800s.
There was some disagreement about what copyright meant. Here are some general points as I see them.
1) Copyright covers more than just exact word-for-word plagiarism. Substantially similar games can be subject to a lawsuit, which came up when TSR sued GDW for publishing Gary Gygax's "Dangerous Journeys" RPG because of supposedly similarities to D&D. That didn't go to court, but character copyright was illustrated by the Krofft's suit that McDonaldland was an infringement on their H.R. Pufnstuff TV show.
2) Pure game mechanics seem parallel to processes, which cannot be copyrighted. Copyright could cover phrasing of a rule, but an alternate phrasing of the rule should be allowed.
3) Many elements of RPGs, though - like races, classes, spells, monsters, and magic items - aren't really mechanics in the normal sense. These could be copyrighted as similar to unique characters.
4) A potential out is that copyright allows for some borrowing of elements as long as it isn't too much. This is a fuzzily defined concept called "Fair Use" that has an outline of criteria but no exact definition.
5) The WotC Open Gaming License is a contract that allows use of certain copyrighted material without concern for copyright infringement. This only applies to material that was released under the OGL - which is mainly the SRD that has 3rd edition rules. However, the contract puts even greater restrictions on certain elements (called Product Identity) that would forbid even fair use of those elements.
I do feel like it shouldn't be 70 years after the death of the author. Kinda feel like it should be 50 years or the death of the author, whichever comes first. That said, I feel there is nevertheless value to be had in copyright lasting long enough that an author has creative control over what they have created. And I might find 20 years or the like a bit unjust given that somebody in their 20s when they made a thing would lose rights and creative control in say their 40s, and anybody could sell their books/inventions and profit without benefitting them at all. Still, interesting to see how things have creeped up over the years. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Tom_Bell%27s_graph_showing_extension_of_U.S._copyright_term_over_time.svg/450px-Tom_Bell%27s_graph_showing_extension_of_U.S._copyright_term_over_time.svg.png
The overly long copyright terms are actively detrimental to preservation of old works, creative expression as a whole, and by extension the cultivation of fandom.
There are many old rpgs that languish in limbo because fans have limited legal means to keep these games alive. There's only so much that fans can do when they can only produce material as a hobby without financial backing.
We saw this with the OGL. Once WotC published it, there was an explosion of third party products from both professional companies and hobbyists. Fans of the game could now publish their homebrew material and make a profit from it. Most of these products weren't successful and the boom eventually went bust, but just the promise of opportunity seemed to be sufficient. A similar phenomenon was seen when d20 Modern was released. Indeed, numerous independent d20-based products were released that didn't require WotC rulebooks at all. Right now we're seeing a similar flood of products being written compatible with 5e, regardless of genre.
Quote from: KindaMeh on October 07, 2022, 12:55:20 PM
I do feel like it shouldn't be 70 years after the death of the author. Kinda feel like it should be 50 years or the death of the author, whichever comes first. That said, I feel there is nevertheless value to be had in copyright lasting long enough that an author has creative control over what they have created. And I might find 20 years or the like a bit unjust given that somebody in their 20s when they made a thing would lose rights and creative control in say their 40s, and anybody could sell their books and profit without benefitting them at all. Still, interesting to see how things have creeped up over the years. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Tom_Bell%27s_graph_showing_extension_of_U.S._copyright_term_over_time.svg/450px-Tom_Bell%27s_graph_showing_extension_of_U.S._copyright_term_over_time.svg.png
That's already covered by trademark.
How exactly do you plan to address the problem of abandonware and orphaned works? E.g. Star Frontiers? WotC is never going to revive it, and even if they did it would suck, so why not let the fans make and sell new editions? What about other ruined IPs like Starship Troopers, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc?
Doesn't trademark only prevent them from lying about the source or sponsorship or likewise imitating brands? I'm not particularly well versed in that area, I must admit, so you may know more about how broadly that can be applied.
Kinda feel like you should have to prove you are or are seriously preparing for marketing something in at least some sense for patent to properly apply, maybe tie once a decade renewals to that. But to be fair, my "solution" was more me throwing a dart at a wall to see where it'd land and what the reaction would be. I do feel like even or especially for iconic properties like Star Wars and the like fans could afford to wait until 2027 or the like, just to respect the copyright. (Though I also think you shouldn't be able to sell a franchise away from the original creator with the copyright intact.) I'm no legal scholar or lobbyist, so this is all pretty much out my butt.
Honestly, I can't bring myself to care if people start selling my books 20 years later. They can't change the fact that I wrote it and it is indelibly associated with me. Corpos are not gonna sell my book or make adaptations if they don't have exclusive rights to the franchise. Which they wouldn't, because I can trademark my work and maintain it in perpetuity by selling the books on kindle even if I never produce another one under current law. Why would anyone even sell my book if it's already available on kindle from my store? Aside from Gutenberg preserving it for posterity, what's the impetus?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 07, 2022, 01:59:38 PM
Honestly, I can't bring myself to care if people start selling my books 20 years later. They can't change the fact that I wrote it and it is indelibly associated with me. Corpos are not gonna sell my book or make adaptations if they don't have exclusive rights to the franchise. Which they wouldn't, because I can trademark my work and maintain it in perpetuity by selling the books on kindle even if I never produce another one under current law. Why would anyone even sell my book if it's already available on kindle from my store? Aside from Gutenberg preserving it for posterity, what's the impetus?
I dunno, if they can sell it for less and make a profit then why wouldn't they? Regarding Kindle, I guess they could choose to give you a monopoly digitally, though I dunno if they definitely would or what the rules are on that. It is indeed kinda weird living in the digital world we presently inhabit, and you make a good point that times have changed.
That said, if I were an author or inventor and folks could sell my work and continue it without my say-so, IDK, I might be a little bit cheesed. And maybe less incentivized to create or continue it past that 20 year mark in the first place. Hard to say for sure what the impact would be, though, since there'd also be a lot of competition I'd assume in continuing say a series with fan works and the like, which could be a good thing. Though I guess stand-alone products might wind up becoming more incentivized than series? It's kinda weird to think about.
There is a bit of a sliding scale due to financial realities. Once you start denting the bottom line of the 800 lb. gorilla, what amounts to copyright infringement in their mind gets looser and looser. A 99% clone that sells 10 copies a year...whatever, send them a nasty letter and be done with it. But if any of the popular OSR games were to get anywhere close to Pathfinder/CoC levels of revenue, they would get sued. It takes a lot of money to prove that you're right.
You're better off being as different as you can be. For copyright reasons, yes, but also just for common sense. Nobody wants to play low-rent D&D clone #15. They'll just play D&D. Your product will be stuck as a small fish in the same tank as the big shark. There's a bigger potential market for new stuff: new worlds, new lore, new everything. And copyright is not an issue for new stuff.
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 07, 2022, 02:18:06 PM
There is a bit of a sliding scale due to financial realities. Once you start denting the bottom line of the 800 lb. gorilla, what amounts to copyright infringement in their mind gets looser and looser. A 99% clone that sells 10 copies a year...whatever, send them a nasty letter and be done with it. But if any of the popular OSR games were to get anywhere close to Pathfinder/CoC levels of revenue, they would get sued. It takes a lot of money to prove that you're right.
You're better off being as different as you can be. For copyright reasons, yes, but also just for common sense. Nobody wants to play low-rent D&D clone #15. They'll just play D&D. Your product will be stuck as a small fish in the same tank as the big shark. There's a bigger potential market for new stuff: new worlds, new lore, new everything. And copyright is not an issue for new stuff.
The problem with the ttrpg market is that it has an insane first mover advantage. It's impossible for new games to break into the market regardless of how different they are. A few years ago Monte Cook released an urban fantasy game with the most unique and surreal premise ever... and nobody played it.
This is why I gave up my dreams of making ttrpgs and decided to go into prose fiction and crpgs. Unlike ttrpgs, consumers will read/play more than one.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 07, 2022, 02:24:27 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 07, 2022, 02:18:06 PM
There is a bit of a sliding scale due to financial realities. Once you start denting the bottom line of the 800 lb. gorilla, what amounts to copyright infringement in their mind gets looser and looser. A 99% clone that sells 10 copies a year...whatever, send them a nasty letter and be done with it. But if any of the popular OSR games were to get anywhere close to Pathfinder/CoC levels of revenue, they would get sued. It takes a lot of money to prove that you're right.
You're better off being as different as you can be. For copyright reasons, yes, but also just for common sense. Nobody wants to play low-rent D&D clone #15. They'll just play D&D. Your product will be stuck as a small fish in the same tank as the big shark. There's a bigger potential market for new stuff: new worlds, new lore, new everything. And copyright is not an issue for new stuff.
The problem with the ttrpg market is that it has an insane first mover advantage. It's impossible for new games to break into the market regardless of how different they are. A few years ago Monte Cook released an urban fantasy game with the most unique and surreal premise ever... and nobody played it.
Yes. I'd say that the network effect is very strong for tabletop RPGs. As another data point, one of the only times D&D has been seriously challenged was by Pathfinder, which is explicitly a D&D clone.
Whenever I've suggested "make your own thing if don't like the corpo slop" in other venues so far, I've received a barrage of insults. It's frustrating.
Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2022, 02:38:57 PM
Yes. I'd say that the network effect is very strong for tabletop RPGs. As another data point, one of the only times D&D has been seriously challenged was by Pathfinder, which is explicitly a D&D clone.
To be clear, you cannot copyright rules, just the expression thereof. So by clone, I take it to mean the same rules. The lore/fluff is very different.
The scope of copyright is subjective as well. There are only so many ways you can express the rule of rolling a d20 and comparing to a target number, so the copyright around the expression of that rule is very narrow. However, for an entirely new character class created from whole cloth, you will get a much larger scope of protection.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 07, 2022, 02:24:27 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 07, 2022, 02:18:06 PM
There is a bit of a sliding scale due to financial realities. Once you start denting the bottom line of the 800 lb. gorilla, what amounts to copyright infringement in their mind gets looser and looser. A 99% clone that sells 10 copies a year...whatever, send them a nasty letter and be done with it. But if any of the popular OSR games were to get anywhere close to Pathfinder/CoC levels of revenue, they would get sued. It takes a lot of money to prove that you're right.
You're better off being as different as you can be. For copyright reasons, yes, but also just for common sense. Nobody wants to play low-rent D&D clone #15. They'll just play D&D. Your product will be stuck as a small fish in the same tank as the big shark. There's a bigger potential market for new stuff: new worlds, new lore, new everything. And copyright is not an issue for new stuff.
The problem with the ttrpg market is that it has an insane first mover advantage. It's impossible for new games to break into the market regardless of how different they are. A few years ago Monte Cook released an urban fantasy game with the most unique and surreal premise ever... and nobody played it.
This is why I gave up my dreams of making ttrpgs and decided to go into prose fiction and crpgs. Unlike ttrpgs, consumers will read/play more than one.
I totally agree about the first mover advantage. We're at the point where D&D (TM) is popular because it's popular. Creating something new is much easier said than done.
There's also the aspect of conflicting (though interrelated) motivations for re-evaluating copyright: the desire to protect your moneymaking ability for original creations without losing it to knockoffs, which encourages a fairly broad definition of what constitutes a "knockoff", and the desire not to get sued out of the marketplace by lawfaring competitors, which encourages a fairly strict definition of what constitutes a "knockoff".
I've seen numerous attempts at scifi, urban fantasy, and more. Most have failed aside from a few dinosaurs that somehow cling to life. If you want to play anything else, you're screwed.
The ttrpg market is just not a growth sector. It may never be.
That said, there are some dedicated communities for abandonware games that could benefit from reduced copyright terms.
Not that it will ever happen, but I think copyright should be:
- 28 years for the original rights holder--including corporations if the creator signed over the rights as part of being employed directly by that company.
- A possibility of one 28 year extension for the creator and their heirs (where applicable). This option would not be available to corporations, but of course the holder could "lease" the rights to anyone, including a corporation.
- Absolutely no extensions of any kinds beyond those two periods.
The key aspect is that no matter what was signed or how it was worded, after the first 28 years, the copyright either ends (corporation owned from the get go) or it reverts back to the creator or their estate.
My opinion is unpopular but I'll share it anyway: I don't think "copyright" should be a thing at all (barring fraud).
It causes endless problems for creators, including those who want to use HPL, REH, CAS, stuff.
It makes people fearful of sharing a PDF they bought with their friends so they can create PCs.
It makes some OOP games hard to find.
It's main purpose is to transfer money to Disney etc.
I hope that one day this will look as ridiculous as suing Napster users is now. Now music access is basically free for everybody. Should be he same for books.
I have published a dozen books and my main hurdle is obscurity, not piracy.
If anyone wants to publish a supplement for Dark Fantasy Basic, be my guest, I'll be delighted.
If you don't have a couple of bucks to buy one one my PDFs, feel free to pirate it, at least until you get the money. (please put it in the right folder this time ;) ).
Nowadays most stuff is funded by KS anyway (not mine, unfortunately, for geographical reasons).
But it doesn't really matter what I think, this will be decided by US, China, Disney, etc.
With that said, I think it is very fortunate that we have the SRD, a real blessing. It makes D&D MORE popular IMO, not less popular. I might write a SotDL supplement myself if it had a SRD.
The current copyright times are absolutely insane.
If I was given a magic copyright law wand...
*edited*
Held by an Individual:
The 60 years, +20 year extension for the Author and/or their descendants.
If the rights held by a company, are sold, or part of work for hire:
60 years, +20 year extension for the Author and/or their descendants.
That is far more than enough time for an author and/or their offspring to profit from their creation. Given that someone in their 20's may create something great - 60 years on top of that is literally a lifetime, with +20 more than enough for the kids to cash in...
I would also make a provision that Trademarks based on copyright works lose protection after those time periods as well. Like the trademarked superman "S" symbol which was base on the copyrighted superman illustrations that would eventually fall into public domain...
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 07, 2022, 02:24:27 PM
...
The problem with the ttrpg market is that it has an insane first mover advantage. It's impossible for new games to break into the market regardless of how different they are.
...
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 07, 2022, 03:17:26 PM
...
I totally agree about the first mover advantage. We're at the point where D&D (TM) is popular because it's popular. Creating something new is much easier said than done.
The bar to compete is high.
Not only do you have to be better as a system, you need to release 3-4 supplements a year to support your game and remain 'relevant'. Then you have to stay profitable enough, long enough, for the First mover to become incompetent enough, long enough, for the players of the dominant game to even give you a look.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 07, 2022, 03:52:51 PMThe key aspect is that no matter what was signed or how it was worded, after the first 28 years, the copyright either ends (corporation owned from the get go) or it reverts back to the creator or their estate.
Why 28, out of curiosity? I admit my own rather lazy impulse would have selected a round number like 30.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 07, 2022, 04:16:34 PM
Why 28, out of curiosity? I admit my own rather lazy impulse would have selected a round number like 30.
28 years was the original term of copyright in the U.S. according to the Copyright Act of 1790. I'm pretty sure that's where he's getting the number from.
Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2022, 12:32:06 PM
which to me is crazy. I think copyright should be capped at something like 28 years (which was the original term of U.S. copyright including renewal).
I think 28 plus 28 with renewal works for me. But yes it needs to be shorter.
Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2022, 12:32:06 PM
2) Pure game mechanics seem parallel to processes, which cannot be copyrighted. Copyright could cover phrasing of a rule, but an alternate phrasing of the rule should be allowed.
Yes but if one goes this route to make a clone have a IP attorney on hand. This is not settled case law.
Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2022, 12:32:06 PM
5) The WotC Open Gaming License is a contract that allows use of certain copyrighted material without concern for copyright infringement. This only applies to material that was released under the OGL - which is mainly the SRD that has 3rd edition rules. However, the contract puts even greater restrictions on certain elements (called Product Identity) that would forbid even fair use of those elements.
The D20 SRD has no product identity other than mentioning a handful of Wizard's Trademarks. So you lose nothing in that regard of the D20 SRD. The only right you are giving up is being able to claim compatibility with a trademark without a separate license.
Since most publish in the time they have for a hobby what the d20 SRD offers is clarity. You don't need an IP Attorney to make use of it. Just treat anything that not mentioned as the IP property of Wizards. It is not hard and hundreds have successfully used the content to realize their work in the form they wanted. The few that didn't were idiots especially now that we are nearly 25 years in.
It is not mysterious and it is not hard. If it is not one of the vintage RPGs that can not be derived from existing open content then I feel bad but unless you make nice with the IP holder they will remain unavailable for use. But as Zweihander RPG demonstrates there are options in that regard. The trick is capturing the feel of that RPG if you can't replicate the exact details.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 07, 2022, 03:55:01 PM
My opinion is unpopular but I'll share it anyway: I don't think "copyright" should be a thing at all (barring fraud).
Prior to the advent of the internet that was a recipe for authors getting their works ripped off and printed without compensation. There were several examples of this throughout history before the current system started to take shape in the late 19th century.
But that was a result of the fact you have to handle and distribute mass quantities of physical items (books). Today yeah you would still get ripped off. But patronage can be made to work as shown by those who earn a living distributing free stuff.
Quote from: Jaeger on October 07, 2022, 03:59:38 PM
The current copyright times are absolutely insane.
If I was given a magic copyright law wand...
Held by an Individual:
The 60 years or the lifetime of the author, + 20 year extension for their descendants.
If the rights held by a company, are sold, or part of work for hire:
60 years from first publication, +20 year extension for the Author and/or their descendants.
That is far more than enough time for an author and/or their offspring to profit from their creation.
I would also make a provision that Trademarks based on copyright works lose protection after those time periods as well. Like the trademarked superman "S" symbol which was base on the copyrighted superman illustrations that would eventually fall into public domain...
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 07, 2022, 02:24:27 PM
...
The problem with the ttrpg market is that it has an insane first mover advantage. It's impossible for new games to break into the market regardless of how different they are.
...
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 07, 2022, 03:17:26 PM
...
I totally agree about the first mover advantage. We're at the point where D&D (TM) is popular because it's popular. Creating something new is much easier said than done.
The bar to compete is high.
Not only do you have to be better as a system, you need to release 3-4 supplements a year to support your game and remain 'relevant'. Then you have to stay profitable enough, long enough, for the First mover to become incompetent enough, long enough, for the players of the dominant game to even give you a look.
And your fans will drop you like trash as soon as their original fav game makes a token apology.
I want fans who actually appreciate my work for its own sake. Those looking for a rebound guy can fuck off
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 07, 2022, 02:42:22 PM
Whenever I've suggested "make your own thing if don't like the corpo slop" in other venues so far, I've received a barrage of insults. It's frustrating.
I won't insult. Why not make your own thing?
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 07, 2022, 03:55:01 PM
My opinion is unpopular but I'll share it anyway: I don't think "copyright" should be a thing at all (barring fraud).
I've gone back and forth about this and my current view is that Copyright should never expire. If I created a painting, why should the government be able to come into my house and say that I no longer own that painting anymore? I made it, it is my property. If I want to sell it, I should be able to sell it.
The expiration of copyright is government sponsored theft.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 07, 2022, 03:55:01 PMIt causes endless problems for creators, including those who want to use HPL, REH, CAS, stuff.
Why should the government facilitate you using other people's works?
This is related to RPGs as well. Yes, the current copyright system discourages people from supporting abandoned IP. But why support those IP in the first place?
IMO, it is much better to encourage people to create new games and new IP than it is to facilitate people use the same old IP from decades ago.
Quote from: Cathode Ray on October 07, 2022, 06:14:08 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 07, 2022, 02:42:22 PM
Whenever I've suggested "make your own thing if don't like the corpo slop" in other venues so far, I've received a barrage of insults. It's frustrating.
I won't insult. Why not make your own thing?
They don't provide any good answers besides being butthurt they aren't doing it themselves.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 07, 2022, 06:41:48 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 07, 2022, 03:55:01 PM
My opinion is unpopular but I'll share it anyway: I don't think "copyright" should be a thing at all (barring fraud).
I've gone back and forth about this and my current view is that Copyright should never expire. If I created a painting, why should the government be able to come into my house and say that I no longer own that painting anymore? I made it, it is my property. If I want to sell it, I should be able to sell it.
The expiration of copyright is government sponsored theft.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 07, 2022, 03:55:01 PMIt causes endless problems for creators, including those who want to use HPL, REH, CAS, stuff.
Why should the government facilitate you using other people's works?
This is related to RPGs as well. Yes, the current copyright system discourages people from supporting abandoned IP. But why support those IP in the first place?
IMO, it is much better to encourage people to create new games and new IP than it is to facilitate people use the same old IP from decades ago.
Have you ever tried creating a substitute for an extremely detailed IP that you love but which was abandoned or driven into the ground by the owner? I have.
When I tried making a retroclone of Star*Drive, I quickly became exhausted with having to create legal friendly substitutes of the aliens and stellar nations. I gave up. I didn't see the point in trying. The ideas were already perfectly serviceable and I couldn't produce anything that would be equal or better in quality. I'm just jumping through hoops to avoid being sued and have no desire to reinvent the wheel. In fact, this is how I feel about all TSR's scifi IPs because they're all painfully generic to begin with!
When I tried doing a retroclone of WW's urban fantasy, I finished my pitch in about an hour because I had a plethora of public domain sources to draw from. (Also, the original ideas liberally ripped off other authors and/or weren't good in the first place, so I didn't have competition to measure up to.) At that point, it wasn't really a retroclone but an original urban fantasy setting.
I do think we should incentivize original work over fanfiction because a heck of a lot of people squander their talents that way and it promotes a stagnation of ideas that I absolutely despise (altho in my experience this is mostly a problem with ttrpg settings due to the absurd first mover advantage brand loyalty I constantly complain about), but ideas don't exist in a vacuum. Stories are informed by prior stories. We've reached a point where overly copyright terms are actively harming creative expression. They're limiting the ability of artists to express themselves and the ability for older works to be preserved and shared with new generations.
Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2022, 04:21:08 PM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 07, 2022, 04:16:34 PM
Why 28, out of curiosity? I admit my own rather lazy impulse would have selected a round number like 30.
28 years was the original term of copyright in the U.S. according to the Copyright Act of 1790. I'm pretty sure that's where he's getting the number from.
Yes. And granted it was probably chosen based on the idea of 7s: 7 years as child, 7 years to assist, 7 years to be formal apprentice, then just extended to another 7 to get established. So this was enough time to get at least the first part of your family well-established. If someone would prefer rounding up to 30 for "a generation" or even 35 given increased life expectancy, I wouldn't quibble.
I rather like 28 given my parameters, though, because it puts a limit on how long a corporation could have it before the rights reverted automatically back to the creator. 28 is already a long time to wait if you were middle-aged when you signed something over to a company.
To round it off and make both work, just say 20 for the first term (corporate), then maybe two 20 year extensions for the creator. Not much more than the 56 of before, and easy to remember. Or since the thing is supposed to be generational, could use the "half generation" of 15 years that some support, and maybe have 3 terms of that (if you think 60 years is way too long).
The intent behind the original law was that there was supposed to be sufficient window for the creator to get a lot out of it for themselves and their immediate descendants. Then it was supposed to revert to the public for the greater benefit of the society that enforced the law that gave them that window in the first place. Which sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 07, 2022, 06:41:48 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 07, 2022, 03:55:01 PM
My opinion is unpopular but I'll share it anyway: I don't think "copyright" should be a thing at all (barring fraud).
I've gone back and forth about this and my current view is that Copyright should never expire. If I created a painting, why should the government be able to come into my house and say that I no longer own that painting anymore? I made it, it is my property. If I want to sell it, I should be able to sell it.
The expiration of copyright is government sponsored theft.
I'm half-sure you are jesting.
Anyway, you still own your painting, but I should be able to copy your painting (from memory or from a picture on the internet) with my own paints and canvas (which is my property) without government interference.
No one is even entering your house - they are entering MY house (or PC etc.) to make sure I'm not using my paintbrushes in an unlawful way.
IP is government enforced monopoly. It requires the government agents with guns to work - as I'm sure you're not suggesting you're going to enforce your own IP when someone in China pirates your book. You need the TTIP for that.
IP didn't exist before that. Shakespeare, Mozart, Homer didn't need copyright to leave a mark in history.
Also, in practice this would be a nightmare. Should Disney be sued for using Cinderella and The Snow Queen? Pride and Prejudice and Zombies would never happen. People would be sued by writing a version of the Iliad.
If taken to the extreme, it would prohibit covers, sampling, quotes. We would be paying royalties to the descendants of the first homo sapiens (or neanderthal, apparently) that had the idea of crating a painting in the first place.
It is simply insane.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 07, 2022, 06:41:48 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 07, 2022, 03:55:01 PMIt causes endless problems for creators, including those who want to use HPL, REH, CAS, stuff.
Why should the government facilitate you using other people's works?
This is related to RPGs as well. Yes, the current copyright system discourages people from supporting abandoned IP. But why support those IP in the first place?
IMO, it is much better to encourage people to create new games and new IP than it is to facilitate people use the same old IP from decades ago.
You don't have to encourage or prohibit anything. Let people write new things, with or without using existing ideas. People want new character's? Let them have it. New Conan stories? Let them have it too. Why not both?
I think the term "D&D Heartbreaker" was created to describe people's pet game they made, then nobody played.
It's not the same as copyright being so long. That may exist mostly because of the Disney Corporation. I think they keep lobbying for the copyright duration to get longer and longer so they can hold onto their own properties that were made in the 1930's.
Right now the only way to get a lot of that stuff is to go to foreign sites like Project Guttenburg in Australia. You can download old books for free because Australian law says a copyright is 50 years. Anything from 1972 (as of this year, 2022) is in public domain. Aka you can just download Edgar Rice Burroughs novels like Tarzan or A Princess of Mars, or Bram Stoker's Dracula, or Heinein's Starship Troopers. Yet people still buy E-reader files from Amazon because they don't know.
D&D is going to start falling under that law pretty soon. In 2027 both Holmes B/X and AD&D will be considered public domain in Australia. In the USA, not so much.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 08, 2022, 08:55:46 AM
Right now the only way to get a lot of that stuff is to go to foreign sites like Project Guttenburg in Australia. You can download old books for free because Australian law says a copyright is 50 years. Anything from 1972 (as of this year if 2022) is in public domain. Aka you can just download Edgar Rice Burroughs novels like Tarzan or A Princess of Mars, or Dracula, or Starship Troopers. Yet people still buy E-reader files from Amazon because they don't know.
It is not only because they don't know - it is convenience too. I often buy Dostoyevsky's novels for a buck or two on amazon, just so I don't have to look for it. If there were no IP, people would still buy books, either for convenience or to support the author.
Likewise, people listen to Spotify even when they could hear the same songs on YT for free. People use Patreon and Kickstater even when they can become free riders. Etc.
BTW, having ERB in the public domain is great.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 08, 2022, 08:45:43 AMAnyway, you still own your painting, but I should be able to copy your painting (from memory or from a picture on the internet) with my own paints and canvas (which is my property) without government interference.
You can make your own painting similar to mine just like you can make your own book similar to Lord of the Rings (lord knows that thousands have done this already). You just can't make and sell an exact copy of my book.
QuoteIP is government enforced monopoly. It requires the government agents with guns to work - as I'm sure you're not suggesting you're going to enforce your own IP when someone in China pirates your book. You need the TTIP for that.
If someone steals my car, the government will help me try and get it back and punish those that stole it. I don't see why a book I wrote shouldn't get the same treatment. And, just like the US government is incapable of retrieving a stolen car from China, copyright is no different.
It all comes down to whether or not you view intellectual property as property or if you look at it as some form of socialist community owned item.
To me IP is property and should have the exact same protections as any other kind of property.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 07, 2022, 07:17:05 PMWhen I tried making a retroclone of Star*Drive, I quickly became exhausted with having to create legal friendly substitutes of the aliens and stellar nations. I gave up. I didn't see the point in trying. The ideas were already perfectly serviceable and I couldn't produce anything that would be equal or better in quality. I'm just jumping through hoops to avoid being sued and have no desire to reinvent the wheel. In fact, this is how I feel about all TSR's scifi IPs because they're all painfully generic to begin with!
I'm not sure we actually disagree with each other. I will say that spending your time trying to promote other people's IP if probably not the most effective use of your time, unless you are simply looking for recognition.
It is also true that it is very difficult to create an alternative to a highly popular corporate IP. A new, more successful, version of D&D is probably not even possible at this point. I've said before that the game that replaces D&D won't be just a better version of D&D but an entirely new type of game as different from D&D as D&D was from the skirmish wargames that inspired it.
QuoteWe've reached a point where overly copyright terms are actively harming creative expression.
I'm not sure what you mean by "overly copyright terms" as individual terms can't be copyrighted. Are you referring to Trademarks which is a completely different story? The current Trademark system is why most public domain IP can't actually be freely used. Things like "Tarzan" and "John Carter" are vigorously protected by their owners. So adjusting the length of time copyright expires won't have the affect that many here are claiming.
There is some good news on this front wrt 3D printing. Recently GW sent a request to an STL hosting site (pretty sure it was Cults 3D), to remove over 200 of 3D print designs that were obviously meant to be replacement for 40K models. Cults 3D did remove 65 of those requested but only if they used terms that GW had trademarked, such as "Space Marine" or "Aeldari". Any model that used a generic name such as "Battle Brothers" was allowed to stay even though they were very similar in style and look to official models. The site claimed that they were "Fan Art" and, thus, not a violation.
My hope is that RPGers will cease relying on the OGL and the d20 SRD and just start publishing their retro clones as new games. Someone, however, will need to be willing to fight Hasbro on this which, given the tiny market for RPGs, looks unlikely.
If you've been following GW in the last few years, you'll see that they've been slowly renaming all their factions. Space Marines became Adeptus Astartes, Eldar became Aeldari, vehicles like the Rhino are now the Impulsor, etc. So even they are finding out the limits on using Trademark to protect IP.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2022, 05:04:23 PM
It all comes down to whether or not you view intellectual property as property or if you look at it as some form of socialist community owned item.
Or if I view IP as a government imposed monopoly on ideas, which only benefits Disney and a few mega-corps at the expense of privacy, private property and freedom.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 07, 2022, 06:41:48 PM
I've gone back and forth about this and my current view is that Copyright should never expire. If I created a painting, why should the government be able to come into my house and say that I no longer own that painting anymore? I made it, it is my property. If I want to sell it, I should be able to sell it.
The expiration of copyright is government sponsored theft.
If you really want to live in a world with infinite copyright terms, you should probably start by ceasing to use any and all public domain works or derivatives unless you've made sure to compensate the person who should be the rightful rights-holder. It's not fair to the estates of H.P. Lovecraft, Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare, or the authors of the books of the Bible that they had the misfortune to be born before some arbitrary cutoff date.
I'm being sarcastic of course, but the idea of perpetual copyright sounds positively dystopian to me.
Typo. I meant "overly long copyright terms." Copyright is too long. Disney ruined it. It did bite them back with the Spiderman rights. So there's some schadenfreude at least.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 07, 2022, 03:55:01 PM
My opinion is unpopular but I'll share it anyway: I don't think "copyright" should be a thing at all (barring fraud).
It causes endless problems for creators, including those who want to use HPL, REH, CAS, stuff.
It makes people fearful of sharing a PDF they bought with their friends so they can create PCs.
It makes some OOP games hard to find.
It's main purpose is to transfer money to Disney etc.
I hope that one day this will look as ridiculous as suing Napster users is now. Now music access is basically free for everybody. Should be he same for books.
I have published a dozen books and my main hurdle is obscurity, not piracy.
If anyone wants to publish a supplement for Dark Fantasy Basic, be my guest, I'll be delighted.
If you don't have a couple of bucks to buy one one my PDFs, feel free to pirate it, at least until you get the money. (please put it in the right folder this time ;) ).
Nowadays most stuff is funded by KS anyway (not mine, unfortunately, for geographical reasons).
But it doesn't really matter what I think, this will be decided by US, China, Disney, etc.
With that said, I think it is very fortunate that we have the SRD, a real blessing. It makes D&D MORE popular IMO, not less popular. I might write a SotDL supplement myself if it had a SRD.
I think you're more correct than incorrect, and based what I'm reading in this thread, I think you have a better grasp of the big picture than most. Others are probably better at boring me with details nobody really cares about. But I think you mostly get the overall concept.
Thing is, I'm on the fence about copyright, and IP in general. And a lot of it comes down to the enforcement mechanism. We can see there are clear cases of abuse. We can see it largely comes down to the bigger guy with more money walking all over the little guy.
I've read books on the topic written by actual IP attorneys who have done the deep dives. When they reach the conclusion that after looking at the facts, they have questions about IP legitimacy, which is a conclusion against their own interests, I take note. And I'm inclined to think that people who are not IP lawyers who think it's clearly legitimate maybe don't really know what their talking about near as well as they think they do.
I know from reading those works that the record is pretty clear, that the existence or absence of IP laws has no effect on the number of inventions or creative works. Or the ability to make a living off such things. But it DOES seem to have an affect on the sorts of things that are produced and how they're monetized. Something like research and development of pharmaceuticals is actually a lot less costly when there's no patent since you can just piggyback off of someone else's work. And so grants of monopoly allowing for price-gouging levels of profits ends up not being necessary to incentivize new drug development.
So here's where I'm on the fence.
As I understand it, the foundation of there being any property rights at all is not merely a cultural or a philosophical construct. It turns out that people are willing to fight more viciously, and even fight rather than flee when the odds are against them*, if someone is invading what they consider to be their home. Or in general when it comes to people, places, and things nearer and dearer to them. People really do have an instinctive sense of ownership. And it's not that hard to imagine how that emerges out of evolution. People who more carefully guard those things that enable their survival, to the extent that they are successful at doing so, tend to survive longer. And, face it, also make more attractive mates.
It's also evolutionarily advantageous to respect the property rights of others. Because if they're willing to fight that hard for what they strongly believe is theirs, it's disproportionately dangerous. If you have to, you have to. But otherwise, it's wiser to seek the lower-hanging fruit.
And so I think it's cultures that stumble upon these ideas do outlive those that don't. Hence we recognize rights to property as a thing. And it's a thing that pre-exists any form of law or government. Regardless of what the law says. And it feels like on balance, understanding that opinions vary, that we, the culture, seems to believe intellectual property is property.
Again, I always come back to the question of enforcement. And I do see government enforcement as problematic. As discussed in this thread, copyright is not always so cut and dry. It's broader than just copying word-for-word. There are grey areas. There are disputes. But government enforcement necessarily sides with the complainant. It doesn't seem fair or ethical that if both parties support this system that the system should be taking sides.
There are certainly private means of exclusion. And even if you believe in zero IP rights, what do you do in the face of private exclusion? Surely you would not suggest government intervention there, would you? And so insofar as some things can surely be defended, there will be some de facto IP ownership rights. On the flip side, maybe there are also things we currently recognize as IP that cannot be defended privately. And maybe we're going to ultimately have to realize that those fringe things shouldn't be thought of as property.
As I say, I'm on the fence, open minded, but the pro IP people are way too dismissive of the anti IP people. The anti IP people have a lot more facts and research on their side if you bother to consult true experts on the matter. And reading what the true experts have to say at the very least, even if you don't entirely agree, it does carry a lot more nuance than a lot of people are willing to admit.
* On a different topic, this is why I roll my eyes every time some know-nothing know-it-all drones on, thinking they're being insightful, talking about "asymmetric battles" when the topics adjacent to "balanced encounters" come up. It's like, yeah, all things being equal, of course creatures are going to seek an advantage. But there are exceptions, and those exceptions are arguably the most important battles of all.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 07, 2022, 06:41:48 PM
Yes, the current copyright system discourages people from supporting abandoned IP. But why support those IP in the first place?
IMO, it is much better to encourage people to create new games and new IP than it is to facilitate people use the same old IP from decades ago.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2022, 05:09:39 PM
My hope is that RPGers will cease relying on the OGL and the d20 SRD and just start publishing their retro clones as new games. Someone, however, will need to be willing to fight Hasbro on this which, given the tiny market for RPGs, looks unlikely.
hedgehobbit, I'm a bit unsure of your later point. What would someone need to fight Hasbro about? It seems like you're saying that people should be able to publish clones as new games because they aren't a copyright violation, but Hasbro would claim they are. However, I think that an RPG clone really is a copyright violation. Most of RPGs isn't just functional rules, but rather creative vision.
I'd think of it this way, to reverse who you're picturing doing it. Someone publishes an innovative new RPG. Hasbro creates a clone of it and publishes the same game with great marketing and art. I think under current law, they should be in the wrong, just as McDonald's was successfully sued over McDonaldland stealing from H.R. Pufnstuff.
------
More broadly, I feel that supposed originality is largely illusory and overrated. When I see an RPG advertised as "all new" and "unique" - that doesn't raise my interest. If I hear that it's based in solid years of playtesting - with good execution and editing - that gets my interest more. I'm running a D&D game currently, and will be running an Amber Diceless game soon. I think there's plenty of great play potential in those games despite them being decades old.
I'd compiled lists of RPGs for decades. People generate new games and new IP all the time. But the vast majority of it is ignored, and that's to be expected. What makes a difference isn't coming up with something that's new and unique just to be new and unique. It's executing effectively.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2022, 05:04:23 PM
If someone steals my car, the government will help me try and get it back and punish those that stole it. I don't see why a book I wrote shouldn't get the same treatment. And, just like the US government is incapable of retrieving a stolen car from China, copyright is no different.
It all comes down to whether or not you view intellectual property as property or if you look at it as some form of socialist community owned item.
I don't think of public domain as socialism. I think it's the norm that people shouldn't be able to own abstract concepts that restrict what other people can do. To draw an analogy, an up-and-coming sports players spends time watching the best players to learn how to best play the game. However, when he tries a move he learned from watching Star Player X, he gets sued - because he's stealing that player's move.
On the one hand, maybe Star Player X spent a long time perfecting that move, and it really is innovative. He should get recognition for that. But should it then be considered his "property" that no one else can do? That's the big question.
Quote from: Lunamancer on October 08, 2022, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 07, 2022, 03:55:01 PM
My opinion is unpopular but I'll share it anyway: I don't think "copyright" should be a thing at all (barring fraud).
It causes endless problems for creators, including those who want to use HPL, REH, CAS, stuff.
It makes people fearful of sharing a PDF they bought with their friends so they can create PCs.
It makes some OOP games hard to find.
It's main purpose is to transfer money to Disney etc.
I hope that one day this will look as ridiculous as suing Napster users is now. Now music access is basically free for everybody. Should be he same for books.
I have published a dozen books and my main hurdle is obscurity, not piracy.
If anyone wants to publish a supplement for Dark Fantasy Basic, be my guest, I'll be delighted.
If you don't have a couple of bucks to buy one one my PDFs, feel free to pirate it, at least until you get the money. (please put it in the right folder this time ;) ).
Nowadays most stuff is funded by KS anyway (not mine, unfortunately, for geographical reasons).
But it doesn't really matter what I think, this will be decided by US, China, Disney, etc.
With that said, I think it is very fortunate that we have the SRD, a real blessing. It makes D&D MORE popular IMO, not less popular. I might write a SotDL supplement myself if it had a SRD.
I think you're more correct than incorrect, and based what I'm reading in this thread, I think you have a better grasp of the big picture than most. Others are probably better at boring me with details nobody really cares about. But I think you mostly get the overall concept.
Thing is, I'm on the fence about copyright, and IP in general. And a lot of it comes down to the enforcement mechanism. We can see there are clear cases of abuse. We can see it largely comes down to the bigger guy with more money walking all over the little guy.
I've read books on the topic written by actual IP attorneys who have done the deep dives. When they reach the conclusion that after looking at the facts, they have questions about IP legitimacy, which is a conclusion against their own interests, I take note. And I'm inclined to think that people who are not IP lawyers who think it's clearly legitimate maybe don't really know what their talking about near as well as they think they do.
I know from reading those works that the record is pretty clear, that the existence or absence of IP laws has no effect on the number of inventions or creative works. Or the ability to make a living off such things. But it DOES seem to have an affect on the sorts of things that are produced and how they're monetized. Something like research and development of pharmaceuticals is actually a lot less costly when there's no patent since you can just piggyback off of someone else's work. And so grants of monopoly allowing for price-gouging levels of profits ends up not being necessary to incentivize new drug development.
So here's where I'm on the fence.
As I understand it, the foundation of there being any property rights at all is not merely a cultural or a philosophical construct. It turns out that people are willing to fight more viciously, and even fight rather than flee when the odds are against them*, if someone is invading what they consider to be their home. Or in general when it comes to people, places, and things nearer and dearer to them. People really do have an instinctive sense of ownership. And it's not that hard to imagine how that emerges out of evolution. People who more carefully guard those things that enable their survival, to the extent that they are successful at doing so, tend to survive longer. And, face it, also make more attractive mates.
It's also evolutionarily advantageous to respect the property rights of others. Because if they're willing to fight that hard for what they strongly believe is theirs, it's disproportionately dangerous. If you have to, you have to. But otherwise, it's wiser to seek the lower-hanging fruit.
And so I think it's cultures that stumble upon these ideas do outlive those that don't. Hence we recognize rights to property as a thing. And it's a thing that pre-exists any form of law or government. Regardless of what the law says. And it feels like on balance, understanding that opinions vary, that we, the culture, seems to believe intellectual property is property.
Again, I always come back to the question of enforcement. And I do see government enforcement as problematic. As discussed in this thread, copyright is not always so cut and dry. It's broader than just copying word-for-word. There are grey areas. There are disputes. But government enforcement necessarily sides with the complainant. It doesn't seem fair or ethical that if both parties support this system that the system should be taking sides.
There are certainly private means of exclusion. And even if you believe in zero IP rights, what do you do in the face of private exclusion? Surely you would not suggest government intervention there, would you? And so insofar as some things can surely be defended, there will be some de facto IP ownership rights. On the flip side, maybe there are also things we currently recognize as IP that cannot be defended privately. And maybe we're going to ultimately have to realize that those fringe things shouldn't be thought of as property.
As I say, I'm on the fence, open minded, but the pro IP people are way too dismissive of the anti IP people. The anti IP people have a lot more facts and research on their side if you bother to consult true experts on the matter. And reading what the true experts have to say at the very least, even if you don't entirely agree, it does carry a lot more nuance than a lot of people are willing to admit.
* On a different topic, this is why I roll my eyes every time some know-nothing know-it-all drones on, thinking they're being insightful, talking about "asymmetric battles" when the topics adjacent to "balanced encounters" come up. It's like, yeah, all things being equal, of course creatures are going to seek an advantage. But there are exceptions, and those exceptions are arguably the most important battles of all.
Well said. Yes, you're right about invention, compensation, etc. I didn't understand your question about exclusion - could you give me an example?
I am against coercive government on principle, but I have nothing against voluntary contracts. E.g.; "you cannot put songs that aren't your son YT", for example, is up to YT. But even if we accept coercive government as neccesary, I think government enforced IP is going too far, stepping over property, freedom of expression, etc.
You touched on a important point: many people believe IP is "property". And it is not. Like when people call piracy "theft"; it may be crime (this is defined by law), but not theft (because this isn't the definition of theft).
Likewise, the legal definition of property means something you use in exclusion of others, or "erga omnes". If someone in China pirates my books with HIS laptop, this is not an infringement against my property. My property is untouched. If someone steals my wallet, I lose money. If someone pirates my book, the one store in my HD is unchanged, and all I can lose is a potential, abstract sale that probably wouldn't even happen if the "pirate" had to pay.
Leaving all that aside, as a publisher, I want every book I sell to be worth of the few dollars I charge. And if someone wants to read my books without supporting me, I'd rather have readers than be ignored. I can say from experience that the books I give away for free do NOT represent lost sales. This should be obvious to anyone who tried.
If we were to get rid of IP laws, I think we could easily rely on Patreon, KS, donations, maybe subscription models (e.g. spotify) and people buying stuff they could get for free just to support the author (or for convenience, like I do with dostoevsky books).
I look at it from a consequentialist perspective. The many extensions to copyright lobbied by Disney are now harming creative expression and preventing the preservation of abandoned/orphaned IPs. This is especially obvious in the internet age. Therefore, it is of public benefit to remove the extensions. How that should be implemented is up to the legal system, but it needs to be implemented within a timely frame. If companies want to protect their continued profits, then trademark law already covers that: as shown with the examples of the trademarks on characters like Tarzan and Conan the Barbarian.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 08, 2022, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2022, 05:04:23 PM
It all comes down to whether or not you view intellectual property as property or if you look at it as some form of socialist community owned item.
Or if I view IP as a government imposed monopoly on ideas, which only benefits Disney and a few mega-corps at the expense of privacy, private property and freedom.
Maybe, but if you read a brand new novel and love it, can you write your own sequel and sell it?
That's one reason copyrights exist.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 09, 2022, 04:29:28 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 08, 2022, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2022, 05:04:23 PM
It all comes down to whether or not you view intellectual property as property or if you look at it as some form of socialist community owned item.
Or if I view IP as a government imposed monopoly on ideas, which only benefits Disney and a few mega-corps at the expense of privacy, private property and freedom.
Maybe, but if you read a brand new novel and love it, can you write your own sequel and sell it?
That's one reason copyrights exist.
I thought trademark would protect the characters and even elements of the original story, such as places, names, etc. Copyright prevents you from reprinting the original. Right?
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 09, 2022, 04:29:28 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 08, 2022, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2022, 05:04:23 PM
It all comes down to whether or not you view intellectual property as property or if you look at it as some form of socialist community owned item.
Or if I view IP as a government imposed monopoly on ideas, which only benefits Disney and a few mega-corps at the expense of privacy, private property and freedom.
Maybe, but if you read a brand new novel and love it, can you write your own sequel and sell it?
That's one reason copyrights exist.
Yes, I should be able to do that. That is called fanfic and most authors are okay with that. Nobody would read my novel, however, except a few friends and readers.
But yes, if I wanted to write a Harry Potter sequel I should 100% be able to do that (as hundreds of people have done before). Yes, I should be able to publish. No, it wouldn't make JK any poorer, her fans would prefer buying her stuff for obvious reasons.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 08, 2022, 08:55:46 AM
I think the term "D&D Heartbreaker" was created to describe people's pet game they made, then nobody played.
It's not the same as copyright being so long. That may exist mostly because of the Disney Corporation. I think they keep lobbying for the copyright duration to get longer and longer so they can hold onto their own properties that were made in the 1930's.
Right now the only way to get a lot of that stuff is to go to foreign sites like Project Guttenburg in Australia. You can download old books for free because Australian law says a copyright is 50 years. Anything from 1972 (as of this year, 2022) is in public domain. Aka you can just download Edgar Rice Burroughs novels like Tarzan or A Princess of Mars, or Bram Stoker's Dracula, or Heinein's Starship Troopers. Yet people still buy E-reader files from Amazon because they don't know.
D&D is going to start falling under that law pretty soon. In 2027 both Holmes B/X and AD&D will be considered public domain in Australia. In the USA, not so much.
Copyright in Australia is Life +70 https://www.library.qut.edu.au/copyrightguide/generalinfor/howlongdoesc.jsp#:~:text=In%20Australia%2C%20copyright%20in%20published,PDF%20below%20for%20more%20information) - same as in USA for author owned works. It's possible some older US works are out of copyright there though due to old US copyright law requirements, but this person says Starship Troopers is in copyright https://qr.ae/pvcC0U
Quote from: FingerRod on October 09, 2022, 04:52:12 PM
I thought trademark would protect the characters and even elements of the original story, such as places, names, etc. Copyright prevents you from reprinting the original. Right?
A sequel to the original story is generally considered a "derivative work" under copyright law, and the rights are claimed by the original copyright holder. Here are some explanations:
https://milleripl.com/blogs/copyrights/can-i-do-a-sequel-to-someone-elses-book-or-movie
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law
https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-limitation.html
Derivative works also include translations, adapatations to stage or film, and so forth. This was tested recently with the character of Sherlock Holmes, since the original Sherlock stories have passed into the public domain. The courts have ruled that anyone can publish Sherlock Holmes stories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinger_v._Conan_Doyle_Estate,_Ltd.
---
Trademark in principle only includes marketing of a work - i.e. what is on the cover and in advertising for the work. It shouldn't include material that is inside the work. It is intended to prevent deceptive marketing where someone thinks they are buying from someone - but actually are buying from someone else. It shouldn't cover the content of what is being bought.
The Doyle estate is still claiming "Sherlock Holmes" as a trademark, but it seems like this isn't enforceable, since they tried to block the publication of an anthology called "In the Company of Sherlock Holmes" and failed.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 07, 2022, 06:41:48 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 07, 2022, 03:55:01 PM
My opinion is unpopular but I'll share it anyway: I don't think "copyright" should be a thing at all (barring fraud).
I've gone back and forth about this and my current view is that Copyright should never expire. If I created a painting, why should the government be able to come into my house and say that I no longer own that painting anymore? I made it, it is my property. If I want to sell it, I should be able to sell it.
The expiration of copyright is government sponsored theft.
Protection of ideas aka IP only exists because the government carved out laws to make it a thing. There is no natural right here, since all ideas are permutations on existing ones.
The term should never have been modified from the original 14 + 14 as intended by the Founders.
Quote from: Palleon on October 11, 2022, 08:06:21 PM
The term should never have been modified from the original 14 + 14 as intended by the Founders.
Which term came from England's 1709/10 Statute of Anne, the first modern copyright law.
I teach copyright - did my PhD on it - and I have come to think they got it right the first time.
Quote from: jhkim on October 10, 2022, 02:27:40 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 09, 2022, 04:52:12 PM
I thought trademark would protect the characters and even elements of the original story, such as places, names, etc. Copyright prevents you from reprinting the original. Right?
A sequel to the original story is generally considered a "derivative work" under copyright law, and the rights are claimed by the original copyright holder. Here are some explanations:
https://milleripl.com/blogs/copyrights/can-i-do-a-sequel-to-someone-elses-book-or-movie
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law
https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-limitation.html
Derivative works also include translations, adapatations to stage or film, and so forth. This was tested recently with the character of Sherlock Holmes, since the original Sherlock stories have passed into the public domain. The courts have ruled that anyone can publish Sherlock Holmes stories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinger_v._Conan_Doyle_Estate,_Ltd.
---
Trademark in principle only includes marketing of a work - i.e. what is on the cover and in advertising for the work. It shouldn't include material that is inside the work. It is intended to prevent deceptive marketing where someone thinks they are buying from someone - but actually are buying from someone else. It shouldn't cover the content of what is being bought.
The Doyle estate is still claiming "Sherlock Holmes" as a trademark, but it seems like this isn't enforceable, since they tried to block the publication of an anthology called "In the Company of Sherlock Holmes" and failed.
Thank you, this was helpful.