Quote from: Larsdangly;815037This why it is legal, not why it is ethical. Why does anything think it is ethically o.k. to make a fucking obvious copy of someone else's game, perhaps re-written (badly) and tweaked with some bog-standard house rules, when it is verboten to just reproduce that material?

I sense there is some verrrrrry specific chip on your shoulder here...

So, someone did the job for you that you apparently failed, creating an application for character generation that when your, actually paid for studio, tried to make, it turned out to be a Candy Crusher menu with Error 1284 appearing whenever anyone pushed a button...and rather than buy it, you shut him down.

Way to ride the Unite All Gamers train, WotC.

Quote from: TristramEvans;815043I sense there is some verrrrrry specific chip on your shoulder here...

No, I just find it immensely irritating that some of the same people who go on for pages about copyright law think it is totally cool to effectively plagarize. It strikes me as hypocritical, and therefore douchey.

Quote from: Larsdangly;815089No, I just find it immensely irritating that some of the same people who go on for pages about copyright law think it is totally cool to effectively plagarize. It strikes me as hypocritical, and therefore douchey.

That's obviously not what I was referring to in regards to your statements.

Having your own IP may change your views on IP (not always, not a lot, but...)

When you suddenly realize the work going in, and the chance for folks to just copy your stuff and use their superior channels and distribution, and that nothing you can do will ever compete there, and so any creativity you do will have to be effectively for free and you need a day job eating up your time...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/find-the-thing-youre-most-passionate-about-then-do,31742/

Quote from: Larsdangly;815089No, I just find it immensely irritating that some of the same people who go on for pages about copyright law think it is totally cool to effectively plagarize. It strikes me as hypocritical, and therefore douchey.

I'm not sure who you are talking about actually. Has anyone said both that copyright should be enforced and that plagiarism is OK in this thread? If they did, I missed it.

Quote from: Will;815093Having your own IP may change your views on IP (not always, not a lot, but...)

The first part of your thought had occurred to me. I expect it ends up a lot like how owning property of your own often changes one's views of property rights.

Quote from: Larsdangly;815037This why it is legal, not why it is ethical. Why does anything think it is ethically o.k. to make a fucking obvious copy of someone else's game, perhaps re-written (badly) and tweaked with some bog-standard house rules, when it is verboten to just reproduce that material?

Legally, yes, it is verboten to closely reproduce nearly anything created after 1922 in the U.S. However, I feel that in many cases it is ethical to do so, because I do not agree with current IP law. In particular, I dislike how it generates massive protection for over a century around select mental work, but vastly less or none around other mental work. Ethically, people get ideas from each other all the time, and it is normal to use an idea you got from someone else. People should give credit for this, but having exclusive ownership for over a century to something like Superman or Mickey Mouse is basically insane.

Game design is one of those types of mental work which gets essentially zero protection under current IP law.

There are innumerable sites that reproduce various pieces or large sections of old out-of-print games, and most of those are ethically fine, in my opinion. Creating a clone game that re-creates a single game is not necessarily any more unethical than creating a mix-and-match game that draws ideas from four different games.

Quote from: jhkim;815105People should give credit for this, but having exclusive ownership for over a century to something like Superman or Mickey Mouse is basically insane.

Actually this is one of the few areas where keeping something the hell out of public hands is a good thing.

Quote from: Bren;814990Arthur Conan Doyle is long dead. Sue Grafton isn't. I'm not concerned with facilitating the ability of imitators to copy the works of living authors nor do I see that as particularly valuable to society. If the author is good enough to rival successful authors like Arthur Conan Doyle, then that author ought to be able to write something of their own invention during Doyle's lifetime withou the need to "borrow." If they can't do that than frankly I'm not too concerned with making life easier for them. There is already a plethora of mediocre fiction in the world without arranging copyright law to enable even more.

First, I don't agree that it was impossible for people to create high quality Sherlock Holmes material prior to July 7th, 1930, but then on July 8th -- BAM! -- high quality derivative works were suddenly possible.

If you believe that derivative and adaptive works should never be created, then I'm honestly baffled why you care how long copyrights last for.

Second, it assumes that creators are automatically the best caretakers of their intellectual property for society. I've seen little evidence that this is true, and I offer George Lucas as the most notable and uncontroversial example of it: Nothing about his attempts to prevent the public from accessing the original versions of the first three Star Wars films was in the public interest.

Quote from: Bren;814990I'm not concerned with facilitating the ability of imitators to copy the works of living authors nor do I see that as particularly valuable to society. If the author is good enough to rival successful authors like Arthur Conan Doyle, then that author ought to be able to write something of their own invention during Doyle's lifetime withou the need to "borrow." If they can't do that than frankly I'm not too concerned with making life easier for them. There is already a plethora of mediocre fiction in the world without arranging copyright law to enable even more.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;815111First, I don't agree that it was impossible for people to create high quality Sherlock Holmes material prior to July 7th, 1930, but then on July 8th -- BAM! -- high quality derivative works were suddenly possible.

If you believe that derivative and adaptive works should never be created, then I'm honestly baffled why you care how long copyrights last for.

Exactly. Bren's argument implies that derivative/adapted works are bad and should be discouraged. I don't see how this relates at all to the life of the author.

If you think that someone is a mediocre hack if they "borrow" Sherlock Holmes in 1929, then why is it any different if they do it in 1949 or 1999? Obviously people can still create things today without borrowing Sherlock Holmes. Any author with talent can create without borrowing.

If, however, you think that there is value in people adapting Sherlock Holmes, then why shouldn't it be done in 1929?

Quote from: Larsdangly;815037Why does anything think it is ethically o.k. to make a fucking obvious copy of someone else's game, perhaps re-written (badly) and tweaked with some bog-standard house rules, when it is verboten to just reproduce that material?

I view "ethics" as just a form of political correctness, in that what a person declares is ethical always seems to be what that person wants to be the right answer.

The nature of creativity is to steal (or at least, be inspired by).

That's how books, songs and movies are made. Originality is being able to take various inspirations and weave them together to make something fun and different, but with incredibly rare exceptions, you can trace the origin of various "original ideas" backwards to their sources of inspiration.

We go forward on the backs of those who came before us.

Quote from: Larsdangly;815089No, I just find it immensely irritating that some of the same people who go on for pages about copyright law think it is totally cool to effectively plagarize. It strikes me as hypocritical, and therefore douchey.

Talent imitates, Genius steals!!

Or if you prefer TS Eliot's original quote:

"Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different."

Quote from: Will;815093Having your own IP may change your views on IP (not always, not a lot, but...)

Many creators are honest about their sources of inspiration and realize they are only doing XYZ because someone came before them and blazed the path doing XYZ. Other creators are ego maniacs who think their XYZ is the shining path of originality. Some of each group of creators are wildly successful.

Quote from: Will;815093http://www.theonion.com/articles/find-the-thing-youre-most-passionate-about-then-do,31742/

That is a frightening article! Extremely well written because it does call us all to action, even as it calls forth doom.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;815111First, I don't agree that it was impossible for people to create high quality Sherlock Holmes material prior to July 7th, 1930, but then on July 8th -- BAM! -- high quality derivative works were suddenly possible.

I didn't say it was impossible. I find it unlikely that an author will be able to produce great derivative works without being able to create good original works (original in the sense of not violating existing copyright). You seem to be assuming there is no cost to the property holders or to the public of a tidal wave of bad derivations.

QuoteIf you believe that derivative and adaptive works should never be created, then I'm honestly baffled why you care how long copyrights last for.

Is the ability to read dead. I didn't say never. I said not within legal copyright where legal copyright is using one of the various definitions discussed that is not the banned forever definition that Disney, for example, would prefer.

QuoteSecond, it assumes that creators are automatically the best caretakers of their intellectual property for society. I've seen little evidence that this is true, and I offer George Lucas as the most notable and uncontroversial example of it: Nothing about his attempts to prevent the public from accessing the original versions of the first three Star Wars films was in the public interest.

Isn't Disney the caretaker now? The production of their Star Wars Rebels is a much more entertaining show to my mind than either of the prequel films made under Lucas' control. Which may argue that Lucas was a bad caretaker, but it certainly doesn't prove that no caretaker would always be the best caretaker - which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Star Wars is a much more involved set of IP with far more contributors and collaborators than the vast majority of creative works. Star Trek would be another example. Arguably some control was better than no control throughout much of the 38 year run for the Star Wars franchise. Access to the original versions of the first three films as a public good is an easy thing to agree on. Claiming that allowing uncontrolled derivative material starting in 1987 would have given us more and better stuff is unprovable and ignores the real possibility that what it would have done was killed the franchise with badly made derivatives.

Are you suggesting that the creator should have no rights at all? Because if not, then it is a question of the time, not the principle.

Quote from: jhkim;815115Exactly. Bren's argument implies that derivative/adapted works are bad and should be discouraged. I don't see how this relates at all to the life of the author.

For Fucks Sake! It doesn't imply that derivative works are bad. Although pretty much all of the Sherlock Holmes derivative works I've read lie somewhere between just OK and bad. Which is one of the reasons that I don't see a pressing public good in allowing people to make derivative works after only 10 years as Justin Alexander is suggesting and right away as you seem to be suggesting.

And I said discouragaed within legal copyright. Not fucking forever.

QuoteAny author with talent can create without borrowing.

That was indeed my point.

QuoteIf, however, you think that there is value in people adapting Sherlock Holmes, then why shouldn't it be done in 1929?

I think some balance between the rights of the creator and the rights of every Tomasina, Dick, and Harry to try to sell their Sherlock Holmes fan fic scholck before the living author has even come close to realizing their vision for the character.

Are you suggesting that the creator should have no rights at all? Because if not, then it is a question of the time, not the principle.

I don't have a problem with life of the creator + 20 or 30 years. The creator should have their entire life to do whatever they want with their creation. I can't argue against that.

But, corporations as people means "creators" live forever and that's an issue.

I don't know if Life +20 or +25 or +30 is best for society. I do agree that Life +30 is the maximum necessary before something should be in the public domain.

Public domain is a good thing for society. So is copyright, but the current US laws are not beneficial to our society.

Quote from: JeremyR;814728If not for the very people Hasbro is pissing in the face of, they wouldn't have an IP to "protect".

Quote from: cranebump;814772I think you have to fight the battles that count, but then, I'm not running a multimillion dollar enterprise like those poor, sweatshop executives.:-).

The visceral, searing hatred so many people these days feel for the companies they buy things from still has the power to shock me. Is there a doctor in the house? What's the source of this protean resentment?

Quote from: Will;815093When you suddenly realize the work going in, and the chance for folks to just copy your stuff and use their superior channels and distribution, and that nothing you can do will ever compete there, and so any creativity you do will have to be effectively for free and you need a day job eating up your time...

Are you talking just about the RPG industry or about generating revenue from your creative works?

It is really hard to compete with those with superior channels (and better business sense). Creating and maintaining a business is a lot of work and cost. Sometimes you can get your product out there and, if not beat the top dog, at least create your own niche. That may mean you have to team up with or hire on someone who knows how to do the things you don't know.

Ive worked with a number of start ups over the years and, the ones in which a creator recognizes his limitations have always succeeded, whereas the ones who think they are geniuses at everything usually imploded in an ugly way.

There are lots of great examples right here. of very good game designers teaming up with smaller publishers who produce and distribute good quality books.