I wonder if Zack S is gonna miss his chance here, the Dick of Many Things is just waiting to be printed.

When I think of it, the only value they get from this is to make a big deal but then retract to get goodwill, this but claim they made a mistake releasing those things and use that as an excuse to back out of promises to release other things into the Creative Commons as promised. Otherwise they are just beyond stupid.

Quote from: Venka on April 25, 2025, 11:28:28 AMI wonder if Zack S is gonna miss his chance here, the Dick of Many Things is just waiting to be printed.

Narrator, "It turns out that the Device was just a shape shifting sex toy.  The wizard was intrigued, but the bard called dibs on it."

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 24, 2025, 01:43:12 PMSo are they clueless and incompetent, underhanded and evil, or all of the above?

All of the above and more.

Quote from: Venka on April 25, 2025, 11:28:28 AMI wonder if Zack S is gonna miss his chance here, the Dick of Many Things is just waiting to be printed.

Well play, Venka, well play !!!

Even if I do think that Zakky boi claim to this title is rather toothless, I salute you !

And the idiocity of WotC/Hasbro is soo depth that I am actually thinking they dislike money (currency) and prefer social credit (aka nothing).

Whatever ...

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 25, 2025, 02:33:26 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2025, 02:20:18 PMI think copyright should last for 14 years from first publication, with the option to renew thereafter once every 14 years, up to a maximum of 95 years from first publication.

OK, I'm curious: Why 14 years? Why 95 years (and not a multiple of 14)?

95 is the current term limit on works for hire in the USA. I figure it's easier to convince companies to accept the reform if they don't perceive it as a removal of their rights.

Quote from: zircher on April 25, 2025, 03:21:31 PMNarrator, "It turns out that the Device was just a shape shifting sex toy.  The wizard was intrigued, but the bard called dibs on it."

Very funny.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 26, 2025, 03:25:31 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 25, 2025, 02:33:26 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2025, 02:20:18 PMI think copyright should last for 14 years from first publication, with the option to renew thereafter once every 14 years, up to a maximum of 95 years from first publication.

OK, I'm curious: Why 14 years? Why 95 years (and not a multiple of 14)?

95 is the current term limit on works for hire in the USA. I figure it's easier to convince companies to accept the reform if they don't perceive it as a removal of their rights.

So why 14 years? Why not go with 19 years then as five terms of that equal 95 years?

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 28, 2025, 09:57:06 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 26, 2025, 03:25:31 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 25, 2025, 02:33:26 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2025, 02:20:18 PMI think copyright should last for 14 years from first publication, with the option to renew thereafter once every 14 years, up to a maximum of 95 years from first publication.

OK, I'm curious: Why 14 years? Why 95 years (and not a multiple of 14)?

95 is the current term limit on works for hire in the USA. I figure it's easier to convince companies to accept the reform if they don't perceive it as a removal of their rights.

So why 14 years? Why not go with 19 years then as five terms of that equal 95 years?

Ideally I'd like to revert it to the original term where you got 14 years and could extend it, once, to 28 years. There's no economic benefit to longer terms and anything else is adequately covered by trademark.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on Today at 06:35:55 AMIdeally I'd like to revert it to the original term where you got 14 years and could extend it, once, to 28 years. There's no economic benefit to longer terms and anything else is adequately covered by trademark.

No economic benefit for whom?   Just to be clear, I think the current terms are ridiculously long and never should have been extended the last two times but there is a clear economic benefit for the owner in things that are popular and break into the mainstream.  The first Harry Potter book (and therefore the character as portrayed there) would be entering public domain next year if it were 28 years and I think there is plenty of gas left in that tank when it comes to monetization with merch, theme parks, games, and the upcoming show (racebait raceswap notwithstanding).

QuoteNo economic benefit for whom?

For the public. That's who copyright is meant to benefit. Copyright convinces creators, such as J. K. Rowling, to make their works public so that the public can benefit. How much less likely would Rowling have been to write and publish Harry Potter if the initial book were to return to the public domain next year? I think that number is, as BoxCrayonTales implied, very close to zero.

Copyright is a very special protection that most works do not have. Most works, the moment they come out, can be copied by other than the person making them, and those copies distributed. We provide copyright protection precisely because we want to incentivize creators of copyrightable works more, to convince them to in fact make their works public, so that the public can use them. A 28-year term means a very long period in which the creator has sole right to distribute copies while still ensuring that a significant number of people alive when that special right was granted will be alive to make use of the results of that special grant when the term ends.

Quote from: capvideo on Today at 10:35:16 AM

QuoteNo economic benefit for whom?

For the public. That's who copyright is meant to benefit. Copyright convinces creators, such as J. K. Rowling, to make their works public so that the public can benefit. How much less likely would Rowling have been to write and publish Harry Potter if the initial book were to return to the public domain next year? I think that number is, as BoxCrayonTales implied, very close to zero.

You literally could not be more wrong.   Are you in the US?   Here's the relevant part of the US Constitution that forms the basis of copyright law...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-3-1/ALDE_00013063/

Copyright, during its term, is meant to benefit the author/invention and not the public at large.  It benefits the public AFTER it expires.

QuoteCopyright is a very special protection that most works do not have. Most works, the moment they come out, can be copied by other than the person making them, and those copies distributed. We provide copyright protection precisely because we want to incentivize creators of copyrightable works more, to convince them to in fact make their works public, so that the public can use them. A 28-year term means a very long period in which the creator has sole right to distribute copies while still ensuring that a significant number of people alive when that special right was granted will be alive to make use of the results of that special grant when the term ends.

Again, completely wrong.   Copyright is not some special edge case scenario but rather the default when you create something new.   This might help you understand it better.

"Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression. "

"Once you create an original work and fix it, like taking a photograph, writing a poem or blog, or recording a new song, you are the author and the owner."

"Copyright exists automatically in an original work of authorship once it is fixed, but a copyright owner can take steps to enhance the protections. "

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

Having that copyright and defending it in court (i.e. having the money to pay lawyers to do so) are two different things but it doesn't change that you had it in theory.  Applying for additional protections is optional and expands the protections but it's, as with anything, a balancing act of time/cost.

Again, I agree with you that the current terms since the double extensions of the 1970's and 1990s are ridiculously long and shouldn't have happened... but you have a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the entire point of copyright in the first place.

Quote from: RNGm on Today at 01:21:36 PM

Quote from: capvideo on Today at 10:35:16 AM

QuoteNo economic benefit for whom?

For the public. That's who copyright is meant to benefit. Copyright convinces creators, such as J. K. Rowling, to make their works public so that the public can benefit. How much less likely would Rowling have been to write and publish Harry Potter if the initial book were to return to the public domain next year? I think that number is, as BoxCrayonTales implied, very close to zero.

You literally could not be more wrong.   Are you in the US?   Here's the relevant part of the US Constitution that forms the basis of copyright law...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-3-1/ALDE_00013063/

Copyright, during its term, is meant to benefit the author/invention and not the public at large.  It benefits the public AFTER it expires.

I think what he's saying is that benefit to creators is also benefit to the public, because patents and copyright encourage more inventions to be made and books to be written. Even during the period of patent, the public benefits from a new invention.

However, extending the period of patent and copyright does not inherently benefit the public.

I think the OGL and its derivatives - including the OSR - are a great example of this. What if instead of creating the OGL, WotC had continued the TSR practice of "They Sue Regularly" and suing anyone who created a D&D-like game or even compatible supplements for D&D? I think it would have been less successful for them, but it also would have stifled a lot of the creativity that happened under D20 along with retro-clones and the OSR.

Quote from: jhkim on Today at 01:44:17 PMHowever, extending the period of patent and copyright does not inherently benefit the public.

I would go as far as to say they're to the detriment of the public when they extend beyond a reasonable period like 50+ years post publication or author's death depending on the situation like they were before the extensions of the 1970s let alone the followup ones in the 90s.