I've posted it before and I will do so again. If WotC had a Fair Use Policy like FFE does then people would not even be having this discussion. As it is, to the option to wreck fan-made material that does not economically harm them is totally up to the whim of the suits at Hasbro.

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.

Copyrights and patents are legal constructs to encourage certain forms of creative endeavor, not inherent rights.

Ownership of copyright is a legal construct. Which exists. I don't need to assume an inherent right or entitlement to say that people who violate copyright are legally taking another's creation.

You, on the other hand, appear to think that society has some right to own the creation of its members. As the law presently stands this isn't a legal right until the copyright period expires. So what sort of right is it? And on what do you base that right?

Quote from: jeff37923;815316I've posted it before and I will do so again. If WotC had a Fair Use Policy like FFE does then people would not even be having this discussion. As it is, to the option to wreck fan-made material that does not economically harm them is totally up to the whim of the suits at Hasbro.

I'm surprised they do not. But is there no inherent "fair use" policy already? I mean, there are blanket laws protecting a teacher's right to use X amount of copyrighted material in their class for instructional purposes. It would seem like, in a non-profit situation, the fan would be protected to an extent.

Quote from: cranebump;815320I'm surprised they do not. But is there no inherent "fair use" policy already? I mean, there are blanket laws protecting a teacher's right to use X amount of copyrighted material in their class for instructional purposes. It would seem like, in a non-profit situation, the fan would be protected to an extent.

As far as I can tell, what constitutes Fair Use of IP is determined by the IP holder. By not being explicit in how Fair Use is defined for a specific IP, the IP holder may conduct legal business with that IP as they see fit and keep the fans guessing.

Quote from: jeff37923;815321As far as I can tell, what constitutes Fair Use of IP is determined by the IP holder. By not being explicit in how Fair Use is defined for a specific IP, the IP holder may conduct legal business with that IP as they see fit and keep the fans guessing.

Well, how nice for Wizards. Hope they have a big supply of sticks and carrots.

Let me contrast this with the owners of the Star Trek IP, apparently CBS.

They permit people to make fan films based on Star Trek, even letting people (in non profit corporations, even) run kickstarters to fund them

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/trekcontinues/star-trek-continues-2015-kirkstarter-20

Quote from: Bren;815317Ownership of copyright is a legal construct. Which exists. I don't need to assume an inherent right or entitlement to say that people who violate copyright are legally taking another's creation.

You, on the other hand, appear to think that society has some right to own the creation of its members. As the law presently stands this isn't a legal right until the copyright period expires. So what sort of right is it? And on what do you base that right?

One could well imagine a society in which creators never own their creations, but instead receive acclaim and rewards from society; essentially, a gift economy of ideas. By speaking of "taking other's creations" you bias the conversation against other views of how society might be organized with respect to creativity. As a practical matter, discoverers with no protection used to hide their discoveries, sometimes so effectively that they were never shared, to the general loss of society; so some protection of the opportunity to profit from your own discovery seems appropriate in return for making it public (you can't both keep your invention secret and obtain a patent for it).

Conversely, I think you have agreed that you do not want eternal copyright; therefore that, eventually, today's discovery will become part of the common store of society's knowledge, available for anyone to build upon. And as I see it this eventual acquisition is the basis for saying that, over the long run, society has a right to those creations that are not kept utterly secret. Like the old joke, we have established what the situation is; you and jhkim are now just haggling over the price (how many years of copyright and other details).

From a dispassionate 'good for culture' point of view, one value of copyright is giving authors the time to develop and polish a concept before people run with it.

That is, instead of getting a half-assed sketch of an idea, when the IP is 'ready' for other folks to use, the author has had time to get feedback, explore ideas, etc.

This is possibly more useful than anyone being able to grab an idea as soon as it is noticed.

(Mind you, you can argue the reverse, too)

Quote from: rawma;815326One could well imagine a society in which creators never own their creations...

Yes one can imagine any number of things. But those imaginings aren't very relevant.

QuoteBy speaking of "taking other's creations" you bias the conversation against other views of how society might be organized with respect to creativity.

If one can't handle the "bias" of using the current legal descritption of the situation then one probably isn't tall enough to get on this ride, i.e to take part in this conversation. Personally I see no inherent need to invent new words or definitions to describe the current situation in a way that is biased in the way that jhkim or anyone else might prefer.

QuoteAs a practical matter, discoverers with no protection used to hide their discoveries, sometimes so effectively that they were never shared, to the general loss of society; so some protection of the opportunity to profit from your own discovery seems appropriate in return for making it public (you can't both keep your invention secret and obtain a patent for it).

Yep. That is part of the tradeoff that our society has chosen. I think that some creators will keep their creations secret if they see insufficient control of their creation. There is certainly ample evidence of authors who did not publish their works in their lifetimes. We don't know what great literature will be delayed or that society may lose if tempermental creators lose control of their works in their lifetime. It seems likely that it will be a non zero amount. Whether that will be balanced by good works produced by others using the creator's creations is unknown.

QuoteConversely, I think you have agreed that you do not want eternal copyright

Yep. I've said that repeatedly.

Maybe you can pass that on to jhkim. He seems to be having trouble grasping that the issue is what the fair tradeoff between individual and group rights is in this situation. Babbling about whether rights are inherent just obscures the issue. The rights of society can't be any more inherent than are the rights of its individual members.

Quote from: Will;815327From a dispassionate 'good for culture' point of view, one value of copyright is giving authors the time to develop and polish a concept before people run with it.

...

(Mind you, you can argue the reverse, too)

I will take that license since you offer it. With or without protection, a determined lone creator working in secret will labor until the creation is ripe.  With no protection, they might get discouraged and stop creating if the reward seems meager relative to the uncertainty of success. But with too much protection, everything could be safely revealed and refined in group discussions, where ideas all tend to the mean, and the result might be that everything is designed by committee, and we never get any truly visionary creations.

In short, we should all log off and not come back until we create something.

Well, I'm waiting for stuff to render as we speak.

(My webcomic! WOO)

Quote from: jeff37923;815321As far as I can tell, what constitutes Fair Use of IP is determined by the IP holder. By not being explicit in how Fair Use is defined for a specific IP, the IP holder may conduct legal business with that IP as they see fit and keep the fans guessing.

God the number of times I've seen someone selling someone elses game under the claim of "fair use". Someone even was selling their copy of 40k under "for educational purposes." Its gotten to the point that those terms have become a flag for stolen or pirated.

Quote from: Will;815327From a dispassionate 'good for culture' point of view, one value of copyright is giving authors the time to develop and polish a concept before people run with it.

That is, instead of getting a half-assed sketch of an idea, when the IP is 'ready' for other folks to use, the author has had time to get feedback, explore ideas, etc.

This is possibly more useful than anyone being able to grab an idea as soon as it is noticed.

(Mind you, you can argue the reverse, too)

Personal example. I had one would be publisher hire me on to help design a game based on his IP. About midway through he pulled the "Well you know game rules arent protected" gag. Eventually he showed his true colours and refused to even pay me the measly little consulting fee.

Game design is allready a tenuous thing and people want to take away any safety net at all just so a handfull of parasites can get fat off slave labor. Which makes the genuinely honest believiers look bad in an allready bad work environment.

Sharing mechanics and elements is perfectly fine. (Though even there there are those who take it too far.)

Which is the crux of the problem.

There is allways someone on both sides who wants to take it too far and not for any altruistic reason.

Quote from: rawma;815326One could well imagine a society in which creators never own their creations, but instead receive acclaim and rewards from society; essentially, a gift economy of ideas. By speaking of "taking other's creations" you bias the conversation against other views of how society might be organized with respect to creativity. As a practical matter, discoverers with no protection used to hide their discoveries, sometimes so effectively that they were never shared, to the general loss of society; so some protection of the opportunity to profit from your own discovery seems appropriate in return for making it public (you can't both keep your invention secret and obtain a patent for it).

Been tried. 1918. Russia. First Lenin, the Stalin. Didn't work.

With a population to rival the U.S. and almost 3x the land the Russian economy fell far behind technologically, and failed to keep pace geopolitically as well losing almost all of their post WWII land holding gains and reverting to the pre-1936 borders. Actually even smaller as many of the Baltic States broke off and claimed Independence.

The Russians had nothing like we had in the west for retail. Their stores were empty of people, and their store shelves were empty of stock.

Lots of people had acclaim, and many statues were erected in honor of the common workers, but there was no food at the Markets for the people, and organized crime gained an extremely strong following with successful black market trade of common goods obtained illegaly from the West.

It's every man for himself (and his family).