Quote from: Lynn;815247If I decided I liked those rule mechanics enough to incorporate them into a work that has 100% different text, would it devalue LotFP?

Beats me really. It could swing all sorts of ways.

Did you get permission? Or conversely, Did the author grant permission or encourage use?

Are you crediting the author?

Stuff like that.

In one case the author might be trying to promote their mechanics simmilar to OGL/d20. They want their system name prominent so people know.

Another might want only his own works using his system out there as that is his income from his work. Meagre as that might be sometimes.

Where do you cross the line from collaboration, encouraged application, or effectively fanwork - over to canniballizing parts for something original - over into using the work as a frame to hang your canvas - over into being a parasite looking to leech off someone elses work for your own profit without working for it?

Beats me. But I can tell you its not fun when you find out a big company has been using your stiff and not even crediting you. Though it is pathetically hilarious that the big company is so desperate that they are ganking ideas from tiny little nothing publishers.

The thing that gets missed in the Copyright/Trademark/Patent debate is cost.  It doesn't matter if you're right or getting screwed if you can't afford a lawyer good enough to prove it.

So...what ends up happening is some jackass is selling Tunnels and Trolls while the original creators and publishers can't do anything, but WotC slaps  C&D on a guy for a friggin sans rules character generator and Paradox gets trademarks granted based on copyrights they do not legally hold from an author who blew his brains out 79 years ago.

In other words, all this crowing about protecting the little guy is horseshit, what ends up happening just securing profit for the corporate IP holders.

The author holds copyright during their life, sure.  Hell, let them pass it on to one person and have it last their life for all I care, but don't let corporations hold copyrights.

Quote from: CRKrueger;815257The author holds copyright during their life, sure.  Hell, let them pass it on to one person and have it last their life for all I care, but don't let corporations hold copyrights.

Any laws granting corporations the same rights as a person need to die.

Quote from: Lynn;815253IP is the future of property, and copyright is just a part of it. Unlike patents, copyright doesn't typically block innovation that could save lives or improve society in general. Trademarks don't either.

Perhaps you are unaware, but copyright applies to textbooks, medical manuals and other non-fiction as well as to computer software and documentation.

I think one of the huge innovations of recent decades has been the open-source movement that turned copyright law against itself. The movement has generated an enormous shift in software, along of course with innovations developed in the public domain like the Internet (from the U.S. military) and the World Wide Web (from European public research).

I should mention that for two years I worked for a non-profit that was producing Creative Commons educational materials. One of the hungriest places for our material was places like rural India. Copyright protection block teachers there from translating modern textbooks that tend to sell for $100 or more, which is completely out of their price range.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;815258Any laws granting corporations the same rights as a person need to die.

So the law is alive? Hee

Quote from: jhkim;815251And in 1920 in the U.S., copyright protection was a fixed 28 year period - and it had not yet been broadened by court precedent to include things like strong character copyright (from the McDonaldland case). I don't see any clear evidence that the extension of copyright to 100+ years has benefited writers. Rather, the extensions are being pushed through by long-standing corporations like Disney, record companies, and movie studios.

I claim that good writers can do amazing things adapting other work, regardless of the timing and the legalities. If the laws were changed to bring back more sane term limits, then good authors would again start writing good adaptations of the material put in the public domain.

I have to agree with this. The companies are pushing through extended copyright terms to prevent newer companies from using older material. They also have less expenses in that they don't have to republish and file for a new copyright on older material they may own.

I don't think companies should have the right to own copyright and other IP at all, and instead would be much more pleased if copyright was owned by specific living breathing individuals as opposed to some non-sentient entity.

I also believe that writers should work at creating good new fiction and creative works instead of resting their laurels on coasting with existing IP, and I don't believe that IP should be an inheritable property. Let Junior create his own new works.

I suspect most of us agree that 'corporations are people' is a really baaaad thing.

Depends. Some corporations are just a person, some are millions.

It's nice in theory to have an IP held by one person. But what if you get a scenario where you have two or more people as creators, such as Seigel and Shuster for Superman? Wouldn't they require the legalities that a corporation entails to receive any income?

Quote from: jhkim;815251I don't see why you think it would be necessary.

Yes. You've made that quite clear that because it doesn't concern you that means you don't think it should concern me. You also made it quite clear that you don't care that the cheap imitations might devalue the work for the living, still creating author.

QuoteThe issue is that you have repeatedly suggested that an adaptation of a copyrighted work as an uncreative, talentless hack. You are conflating *legality* (especially given that laws change) with *creative worth*.

No I am not. You can keep saying that, but seriously try reading instead of erecting one straw man after another. You have repeatedly argued that authors should not be able to maintain copyright long enough to finish their own series of outlined books before they have to compete with imitators. And as a justification you cite all the wonderul imaginary works that are not being created because the poor would be writers are barred from writing and selling their own stories about Kinsey Millhone or Miles Vorkosigan. I have argued that there is no pressing need for authors who are capable of writing good stories to use the creations of living authors who are still writing works in that IP space. You then cite authors like T. H. White as a counter example. Except T.H. White didn't need 21 year old IP to write a good story.

QuoteI claim that good writers can do amazing things adapting other work, regardless of the timing and the legalities. If the laws were changed to bring back more sane term limits, then good authors would again start writing good adaptations of the material put in the public domain.

Your claim that amazing works are not being created because authors are barred for using 21 year old IP is questionable and ultimately unprovable.

Quote from: jhkim;815259I should mention that for two years I worked for a non-profit that was producing Creative Commons educational materials. One of the hungriest places for our material was places like rural India. Copyright protection block teachers there from translating modern textbooks that tend to sell for $100 or more, which is completely out of their price range.

India and China are two of the biggest violators of IP. Slowly that is changing as the creators in those countries begin to see the value of protecting their creations from illegal and unpaid usage. Much like what we saw in the US as this country changed from a user of IP invented elsewhere to a country where new IP was created.

I find it interesting how often in these discussions people with a vested economic interest in taking and using other people's intellectual creations without payment find ways to justify what is in their own economic interest by claiming it is in the interest of society. If you want to make your creations easily and freely or cheaply available that's your right. If you think that is a better economic model or a more ethical position, hey knock yourself out. But deciding you want to take other's creations and decide for them what is in their economic interest so that you can get something that is in your economic interest is morally suspect.

Quote from: Endless Flight;815269Depends. Some corporations are just a person, some are millions.

It's nice in theory to have an IP held by one person. But what if you get a scenario where you have two or more people as creators, such as Seigel and Shuster for Superman? Wouldn't they require the legalities that a corporation entails to receive any income?

Shared IP always creates complications. If nothing else, because the owners may not agree on how to use the IP.

In this case you could do one of several things.

1) You could use a fixed limit (unrelated to lifespan) with a fixed number of possible renewals so that corporations and co-ops end up with the same period of IP protection as do individuals.

2) You could use the longer of the ages of the individuals involved in the original IP creation.

3) You could use the shorter of the ages of the indivicuals involved in the original IP creation.

The simplest to implement and administer is probably 1).

Also you could attach diligence obligations to the renewal, so that books that are allowed to go out of print would not be eligible for renewal. That would be in the public interest.

Quote from: Will;815266I suspect most of us agree that 'corporations are people' is a really baaaad thing.

Especially since they can be set up with so many baked in processes and policies and limitations on what any one officer can do without committing a violation of their corporate responsibility that a corporation can run essentially like a self-sustaining robot...

...one without Asimov's laws to inhibit behavior.

Quote from: Bren;815270I find it interesting how often in these discussions people with a vested economic interest in taking and using other people's intellectual creations without payment find ways to justify what is in their own economic interest by claiming it is in the interest of society. If you want to make your creations easily and freely or cheaply available that's your right. If you think that is a better economic model or a more ethical position, hey knock yourself out. But deciding you want to take other's creations and decide for them what is in their economic interest so that you can get something that is in your economic interest is morally suspect.

Agreed that it is reasonable to suspect people' motives. This goes both ways, though. If Saudi Arabia were to advocate for special laws promoting the importing of oil, we should question their motives. If an inventor argues that patents should really last 50 years, then we should question whether that is really in everyone's best interest. If an author argues that copyright should last over 100 years, then we should question whether that is in everyone's best interest. If a movie studio executive argues that copyright should last that long, then we should really question it.

Personally, I have no economic interest in shortening copyright. I would get no money from it, and indeed I work in IP creation although I am not paid in royalties.

By describing this as "taking other's creations" - you're starting from the assumption that ownership is an inherent right. That is the attitude of entitlement that I disagree with.

Copyrights and patents are legal constructs to encourage certain forms of creative endeavor, not inherent rights. People inherently deserve fair recognition and reward for the work they do, but that doesn't mean that they are inherently entitled to lifetime control over every idea they come up with. A brilliant inventor is not given lifetime control over their invention. A brilliant scientist is not given any control over their discovery. A brilliant game designer is not given any control over their design.

Quote from: jhkim;815259Perhaps you are unaware, but copyright applies to textbooks, medical manuals and other non-fiction as well as to computer software and documentation.

Yes, I know this. And in some industries it can be a minefield of trouble with some flaming hoops (for example, my understanding is that screenshots of UIs have been treated as derivative works in CS) at times.

But two medical books by different authors can describe the same disease and treatment without using the same words and pictures.

Quote from: jhkim;815259I think one of the huge innovations of recent decades has been the open-source movement that turned copyright law against itself. The movement has generated an enormous shift in software, along of course with innovations developed in the public domain like the Internet (from the U.S. military) and the World Wide Web (from European public research).

I agree, but as an addition to rather than as a replacement of. There are reasons why companies and individuals would use (and distribute) both.

Quote from: jhkim;815259I should mention that for two years I worked for a non-profit that was producing Creative Commons educational materials. One of the hungriest places for our material was places like rural India. Copyright protection block teachers there from translating modern textbooks that tend to sell for $100 or more, which is completely out of their price range.

Public domain and CC are great for that (and more than that), or just plain sharing with instructors in your own country and language.

Quote from: jhkim;815281By describing this as "taking other's creations" - you're starting from the assumption that ownership is an inherent right. That is the attitude of entitlement that I disagree with.

It is also a point of law that's derived from a form of government, so it is an expectation of participating within the market.

It is completely reasonable to disagree, and to try to actively promote ways of changing that (or alternative methods) through legal means. Hopefully in doing so, it generates intelligent discussion and stakeholders can find ways to continue without losing their shirts, before changes come into effect.

But not the inverse that because someone disagrees, they are entitled to share what isn't theirs and expect to garner sympathy when getting jackbooted for uploading or whatever.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;815258Any laws granting corporations the same rights as a person need to die.

Indeed, they do.

I suppose someone brought this up already, but there's a difference between obtaining a free homemade character generator and adopting it for personal use as opposed to stealing content and reselling it for a profit. I assume the program in question wasn't being sold for profit? I realize it likely makes no difference, but would think the creator is absent malice, which ought to count for something, especially in these days of shared everything. One day of course, it'll all be Star Treky and you'll only need Latinum to deal with the Ferengi.:-)