Quote from: jadrax;567384Plenty of people make a lot of money of works that are not in copyright. If you want to make long-term money, you need to look at how people sell Shakespeare rather than how they sell Disney films.

That's why WotC totally screwed the pooch with 4e.  They, as part of Hasbro are more of a IP Brand Management company then anything else at this point.  They were trying to manage an IP, when they should have figured out that the OGL meant they were simply the main seller of aspirin.  

When you can't stop another company from making your old product, you have to really make the consumers want your new one instead.  They tried very, VERY hard to make people not want older versions of D&D and to be able to acquire it if they did.  They played hardball, and in the end, lost.

They needed less Disney, more Bayer (who's still sellin' that aspirin).

I have all the official Eclipse Phase torrent releases and try to keep them seeded.  I gave them to a friend, he's buying the hardcovers and is working on getting a campaign up and running.  When he does, I'll grab the main rules Hardcover because I hate skimming pdfs for rules at the table.

Mission Accomplished Posthuman Studios

Quote from: Broken-Serenity;566885So long as the rules arent a pile of shite and the publishers/writers arent completly delusional about the system and willing to accept feedback about why said rules are a pile of shite(so if it was any good in other words) then sure i'd buy a printed copy if it was also available Open Source, afterall you cant really read a .pdf on the bog

huh...that'd make them different from the biggest players in the industry eh?

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567579All true, for counterfeiting, but I think that Estar was looking more at the intellectual property aspect of the copyright.

Counterfeiting is about intellectual property and copyright (and possibly trademarks too).

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567579The artist makes a statue of a man looking at an apple, and another artist looks at statue and makes one very, very similar.  Artist A then sues Artist B for making something that appears very similar to his without his permission.

In another instance, if I were to go out and using my amazing (ly nonexistent) art skills, created an anime about intrepid heros fighting in transforming jets against giant green alien humanoids, I'm pretty sure that I'd be hearing from Bandai (or whoever owns the rights to Macross in the US this week) within a couple days with a cease and desist order at the very least, even if my storyline had nothing to do with the exact events of the original series and my mecha designs and artwork were noticeably different (especially since they would be pretty badly drawn stick figures...).

That would depend entirely on how much you copied Macross trade dress.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567579It's the interpretation that any similar core concept also becomes the property of the copyright holder that's leading to the creativity blight.  And with the primary licenses being snapped up by large corporate entities that have the money and interest to pursue lawsuits, there's less likely to be unchallenged development as time goes on.

Create something that doesn't infringe. You can create things which are thematically similar to popularized works without infringing on them.

I agree that copyright terms (and much, much worse, patents) are out of hand. Id be happy with life of the author + X years + 1 renewal for X years.

Quote from: Lynn;567618Counterfeiting is about intellectual property and copyright (and possibly trademarks too).



That would depend entirely on how much you copied Macross trade dress.

No, what I described would be enough, because of the thematic similarities.  Orguss, for example, would never be able to come out today in the US, because of the similarities. (I forget which one came first, but that's not the point)

QuoteCreate something that doesn't infringe. You can create things which are thematically similar to popularized works without infringing on them.

I agree that copyright terms (and much, much worse, patents) are out of hand. Id be happy with life of the author + X years + 1 renewal for X years.

Creating something that doesn't infringe is what I'm saying is becoming more difficult.

Quote from: The Traveller;567585The devil is in the details though. I can take the idea of Star Trek and create my own fiction based on a futuristic republic sending forth exploration ships to strange new worlds, with my own spin on it. I can't create a work called "Star Track", where Captain John Duke Ricard explores strange new worlds for the Confederation. If the originators feel it is close enough to their original work, I could then be sued and I'd probably lose. Personally I don't see a problem with that system.

Freedom of Expression give you the right to make your own Star Trek even a duplicate along as no other laws are broken like stealing props, fraudulent representation as somebody else work,  a script, or aiding an actor to break their contract.

However this not desirable in getting the original authors to create more Star Trek so a choice was made to limit our Freedom of Expression to promote progress of the arts. The limitation being that the original author will get the exclusive privilege of making copies and derivatives works of their creation for a limited time.

I am calling the kettle black by phrasing it this way. It is a restriction on our inalienable rights and is only granted because it serves a useful purpose.

Remember copyright originated in the 17th and 18th century as a means of censorship and control by the crowned heads of Europe. To tame that pesky device known as the printing press. The Founding Fathers realized that but also realized that the opposite situation was not desirable. Hence the grant of limited time and making sure that the purpose for which it was granted was written down.

This view of copyright was not unique to the Founding Fathers of the United States. It was held by many others in Europe as well. Starting in the late 19th century a series of treaties were enacted creating the modern idea of copyright, so that authors and artist would freely share their work and profit from their efforts. And it worked out that copyrights, patents and other forms of intellectual property proved instrumental in the industrial and information revolutions, lifting billions out of poverty. So it was the right choice despite it restricting freedom of expression.

However taken too far it becomes an instrument of tyranny. And I believe we just stepped beyond that point today both in the United States and the World. And that it time to pull it back.

I also believe that this is inevitable due to the continued development of technology and just as important the idea of open licenses and creative commons.  The Disneys of the world will bend or become irrelevant as people find other creative outlets. Just as the aristocrats of old lost their grip when the common man was able to enjoy the good things of life in abundance.

Mind you I am not advocating the abolition of copyright. For whatever time period the artist or author has copyright over their work I expect the law and society to respect that right.  That any contribution made under public domain, open licenses or creative commons is to be made freely and without coercion.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567625No, what I described would be enough, because of the thematic similarities.  Orguss, for example, would never be able to come out today in the US, because of the similarities. (I forget which one came first, but that's not the point)

Do you have an actual example where thematic similarity (similar to the above) resulted in litigation or even a settlement?

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567625Creating something that doesn't infringe is what I'm saying is becoming more difficult.

Don't try to sell something without doing some research first. It is true you can miss something anyway, but some people find it hard entering key words in Google.

Quote from: estar;567654However taken too far it becomes an instrument of tyranny. And I believe we just stepped beyond that point today both in the United States and the World. And that it time to pull it back.

While philosophically and morally I agree with you, taken from another perspective the situation today might provide an incentive for creators to create entirely new works. I've no difficulty coming up with a selection of fresh ideas, and don't need to mimic some franchise to any great extent (although its impossible to avoid borrowing from many, for identification reasons if for nothing else).

Look at JK Rowling for example, I recall watching a show on TV many years ago, long before she began writing, about a young witch in a stately old school-castle having adventures. JK may not have lifted the idea wholesale but I can see where she might have been influenced by it, particularly since this was broadcast in the UK.

Quote from: estar;567581However a copyist artist can copy the original statue without deception. Making sure that it is publicly and obviously known that the statue was carved by copier along with the fact it is a duplicate of the another statue.

That would also depend on what he does with it, since statues can be copyrighted. I discussed this with the USPTO, because I needed information on copyrighting objects on digital goods that are similar to statues, for which there's a process (submitting a bunch of photos and submitting a rather obscure form).

Quote from: estar;567581In this case by punishing the copyist, society is punishing the individual not for fraud but for expressing an idea. Something that western civilization has determined to be a fundamental right.

However the freedom of expression isn't absolute. One doesn't have the right to should "Fire!" in a crowded theater for example. There are legitimate reasons for society to curtail the fundamental freedom of expression that human beings enjoy.

There are many, many types of expression which are regulated or prohibited, depending on the jurisdiction.

Quote from: Lynn;567676Do you have an actual example where thematic similarity (similar to the above) resulted in litigation or even a settlement?

Sure.

Quote from: FOREST PARK PICTURES v. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION NETWORK INCThe work at issue in this case is Forest Park's idea for “Housecall,” manifested in the series treatment (comprising character biographies, themes, and storylines). This treatment and associated written materials are “works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium.” 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). Although Forest Park's Complaint does not allege that USA Network took its actual scripts or biographies, the subject matter requirement is met because the Complaint alleges that USA Network used the ideas embodied in those written works. That the work contains within it some uncopyrightable ideas does not remove it from the subject matter of copyright. See Briarpatch, 373 F.3d at 305. Moreover, because the ideas that are the subject of the claim were fixed in writing—whether or not the writing itself is at issue—the claim is within the subject matter of copyright. See NBA, 105 F.3d at 849; see also Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (holding that an idea for a television show, once fixed in a tangible medium, fell within the subject matter of copyright); Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 455 (6th Cir.2001) (holding that an idea for a character, conveyed in storyboards, scripts, and drawings, was within the subject matter of copyright). Therefore, the first requirement for preemption is met.

This decision is still under appeal litigation, so there's nothing definite on it yet.

Quote from: 17 USC § 102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

However, in 562 F.2d 1157 (Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. and Sid &marty Krofft Productions, Inc., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Mcdonald's Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc.,defendants- Appellees.sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. and Sid &marty Krofft Productions, Inc., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Mcdonald's Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc.,defendants- Appellants) (NO LIE! That's the Case name!) the court decided to further allow a certain expression of similarity of concept in the decision of infringement.

You can read that decision here

So, in my example previously, yes, I would definitely be sued, and they would win.

QuoteDon't try to sell something without doing some research first. It is true you can miss something anyway, but some people find it hard entering key words in Google.

As you like.  But please, don't be condescending when you're wrong.

The big problem I have here is, if we're going to make the argument that "Well, since we don't know what would have happened if Eclipse Phase wasn't marketed in the manner it was, we can't really say that this marketing method is really the reason it was so successful", then we can't argue that piracy negatively impacts sales.

I'm not endorsing or condoning the act, but my belief is that piracy doesn't appreciably impact sales of items.

Several examples have been cited in this thread, and, if one has a mind to do so, they can see that there's rampant piracy happening with popular works, such as Pathfinder from Paizo, yet Paizo's continuing to rack up record sales.

No, I can't say that, were piracy eliminated, Paizo would still be at the same level, any more than I can say that they'd be making tons more money.

I just don't think things are as black and white as some try to make out.

I do truly believe that the vast majority of piracy is conducted by those that wouldn't buy the material otherwise, and of the remainder (i.e. those that WOULD buy the material otherwise), I think a large portion of those DO buy the material - witness such success stories like Eclipse Phase.  No, not truly piracy, if it was provided for free legally, but the method of access is the same as piracy.

I'll use Paizo as an example again:  People are paying Paizo essentially full retail (once you factor shipping in, after the subscription discounts) for books because they get the PDF free (Paizo's subscription service).

Paizo has repeatedly said that subscriptions are the root of it's business - and people are willing to pay full price to get the benefits of those PDFs, rather than saving, on average, 30% to buy from Amazon, and pirating the PDFs.

New subscribers sign up all the time.

Where I take real issue is the complete corruption of copyright, and the support of such a system.

Once again, I'll disclaimer:  I'm not supporting or condoning piracy, but I find that I have little sympathy for supporters of current copyright terms/conditions complaining about their works getting pirated.  I'd have far more sympathy for content creators who released their work under a custom copyright of a term far closer to the origins of copyright.

Personally, I am almost convinced to follow the Eclipse Phase route for ZWEIHÄNDER, providing I can convince my co-author to support it.

Quote from: kythri;567703Several examples have been cited in this thread, and, if one has a mind to do so, they can see that there's rampant piracy happening with popular works, such as Pathfinder from Paizo, yet Paizo's continuing to rack up record sales.

Paizo is riding on the back of D&D though, the first and hence most popular RPG.

Quote from: kythri;567703I do truly believe that the vast majority of piracy is conducted by those that wouldn't buy the material otherwise, and of the remainder (i.e. those that WOULD buy the material otherwise), I think a large portion of those DO buy the material - witness such success stories like Eclipse Phase.

This is a legitimate point, however it has nothing to do with this:

Quote from: kythri;567703I'll use Paizo as an example again:  People are paying Paizo essentially full retail (once you factor shipping in, after the subscription discounts) for books because they get the PDF free (Paizo's subscription service).

Paizo has repeatedly said that subscriptions are the root of it's business - and people are willing to pay full price to get the benefits of those PDFs, rather than saving, on average, 30% to buy from Amazon, and pirating the PDFs.

New subscribers sign up all the time.

Best of luck with your endeavour ZWEIHÄNDER, if you can get a subscription model working in a similar way you should be alright.

I guess we might have something of a live case to see how these things work out:
Limbaugh newsletter shamelessly rips-off D&D

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567701Sure. This decision is still under appeal litigation, so there's nothing definite on it yet.

It will be interesting to see how that sorts out. Usually when presenting a treatment, you end up doing so at the risk of similar ideas already being in production or consideration. That's why a number of writers who submit treatments of shows, etc often end up seeing suspiciously similar shows going into production, some time after pitching their ideas.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567701However, in 562 F.2d 1157 (Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. and Sid &marty Krofft Productions, Inc., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Mcdonald's Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc.,defendants- Appellees.sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. and Sid &marty Krofft Productions, Inc., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Mcdonald's Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc.,defendants- Appellants) (NO LIE! That's the Case name!) the court decided to further allow a certain expression of similarity of concept in the decision of infringement.

You can read that decision here

So, in my example previously, yes, I would definitely be sued, and they would win.

Thank you for that example, and very interesting indeed!  I seem to recall something about this at the time, though not the specifics. My H. R. Pufnstuf interests had moved on at that point...

However my read of that shows that the court found enough (what would later be labelled) trade dress violations to warrant finding for the plaintiff, and that it was very difficult for the court to separate unprotected ideas from protected expressions.

The notes are very illuminating. I also find paragraph 4 interesting in the disagreement over damages.

I agree that the specific  expressions were very loose, and that the "total concept and feel" and the Unity of Idea and Expression sections show just how complex this specific case was.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567701As you like.  But please, don't be condescending when you're wrong.

Your examples are interesting and thought provoking. I don't believe they completely support the broad generalization of giant robots fighting big green monsters necessarily violating Bandai's copyrights - not without specifics to compare.

I do deal with IP issues with digital goods on an almost daily basis, both on the development side and in dealing with people who rip us off. There are a lot of people who have opinions about IP who have neither experience or any creative properties of their own. If I came off as condescending I apologize - when your creations do get ripped off you feel mightily invested in these kinds of arguments.