Quote from: TristramEvans;815470I'm saying not every German was a Nazi. And no amount of goalpost shifting is going to make your argument valid as an analogy for an investor in a company.

You brought up Nazis and Nurenberg in a discussion of corporate responsiblity. If you have a serious point to make, by all means do try to make it.

Quote from: Bren;815473You brought up Nazis and Nurenberg in a discussion of corporate responsiblity. If you have a serious point to make, by all means do try to make it.

I made my point, quite clearly and bluntly. I used a Godwin sledgehammer to drive the point home.

Quote from: TristramEvans;815476I made my point, quite clearly and bluntly. I used a Godwin sledgehammer to drive the point home.

The point you bluntly made was that you lack any appreciation of nuance on this topic, of genocide whether committed by Germany or Canada, and of the logistics required or the morality involved in penalizing individual shareholders for the decisions made by corporate management. But by all means continue your feel-good knee-jerk chest thumping about corporate malfeasance without bothering to actually consider how to fix anything.

Quote from: Bren;815393That is not how the academics I know work. They get a piece of the money. And I haven't seen any statues.

Certainly it's more common in areas not as easily subject to patent or copyright, like mathematics; but also in computer science.

QuoteSigh. Golly gee then it's a good that I didn't insist that expiring copyright is legally taking something without compensation.

You seem unable to discuss a change in the term of copyright without viewing it as an illegal action. If the term of copyright is different, then nothing was taken and there is no illegality; claiming that I don't recognize illegality when there is no illegality to recognize is not made any less incorrect no matter how endlessly you repeat it.

Quotethe creator granting eventual public access to the ideas which the creator created

And again, despite insisting that you don't want eternal copyright, you advocate for that concept; creators granting access only makes sense if they would have eternal ownership of their creations otherwise.

Copyright should be based on how much of your ongoing profits you're willing to gift to the government protecting your copyright.

So, say I'm willing to provide a 15% "tax" on my work in perpetuity, then no one can "public domain" my stuff. If I setup a trust, and they continue the agreement, then it's off the table.

As soon as you stop paying -BAM- #publicdomain #bitches.

I would also entertain the idea of exclusive transfer of copyright to a new tax provider. So say, you pick up a public domain IP and you decide to pitch in 15% of revenue, we lock it back the fuck down for your generous ass. We would open it up to a formal auction of course. Best offer upfront payment plus highest % WINS!!

We are a market society after all. Money is king (and a good equalizer too). Why try and idealize our Whore & John relationship into something it's not. Put your money where your mouth is or we'll rent your mouth to someone else. BOOYAH 'MERICA!

copyright that.

Quote from: Bren;815491The point you bluntly made was that you lack any appreciation of nuance on this topic, of genocide whether committed by Germany or Canada, and of the logistics required or the morality involved in penalizing individual shareholders for the decisions made by corporate management. But by all means continue your feel-good knee-jerk chest thumping about corporate malfeasance

lol, nice try.

But you're still wrong, and I think you've gone past goalpost shifting and now are just randomly playing a game of "throw a dart at any goalpost anywhere".

Nuance indeed.

Quotewithout bothering to actually consider how to fix anything.

If I was trying to fix something, it would not be by posting on rpg -themed message boards. But go on, tell me how your slacktivism will save the world.

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

The problem with that line of logic is that corporations exist to exercise human agency. So if you strip rights from a corporation, you're effectively stripping them human beings.

To take one obvious example, consider your freedom to speech: Any meaningful thing you will ever say is mediated through a corporation. Whether that's a publishing house, a bookstore, a broadcaster, your ISP, or your telephone company. Strip those corporations of the right to free speech and the government can legally prevent them from disseminating your speech.

Quote from: Bren;815151So in your view authors like Sue Grafton (who has been regularly putting out Kinsey Millhone stories since 1982 and does not plan to finish until 2019) would have to spend half their creative time writing a series character while having to differentiate her stories from any number of ersatz derivatives?

You appear to be postulating a reality where there are people writing Grafton-derived fiction that's so incredibly amazing that people stop reading Grafton's originals... while simultaneously claiming that derivative works are crap that can't compete with the originals.

Make up your mind.

QuoteDo you think that will cause a loss of revenue due to brand erosion for Grafton?

Based on everything I've seen, derivative works can only have a net positive effect on the original property. (It's crappy "official" derivative material that causes problems. And even that generally doesn't have a significant impact on the original work unless the original work is no longer available.)

QuoteDo you have some evidence that imitators create works of art that are on average equal to or better than the works of the original creators? I would be surprised by that as it would be contrary to my exprience of creative works which leads me to conclude that for every Shakespeare who takes from others to create a work of genius there are thousands of hacks churning out mediocre crap and bad fan fics.

I'm amazed that you've somehow never noticed that there are thousands of hacks churning out mediocre crap and bad original works, too.

QuoteGood for whom? There have been metric tons of Cthulhu Mythos stories generated ever since H.P. Lovecraft started writing about it. Clark Ashton Smith, Robert E. Howard, Robert Bloch, Frank Belknap Long, Henry Kuttner, and Fritz Leiber all created Mythos stories during Lovecraft's lifetime. Folks like August Derleth, Brian Lumley, and Karl Wagner wrote mythos stuff after Lovecraft's death and before the originals lapsed into the public domain. Now some of Derleth and Lumley is certainly mediocre, but it's not like copyright prevented them from writing stories and expanding the Mythos. What problem did those authors have that needs fixing?

No. You can't point to an example of someone giving people permission to ignore the copyright on their work and then say, "Isn't it great how copyright made this possible? What problem needs to be fixed?" That's like pointing at the OGL and saying, "Isn't it great how copyright laws made Pathfinder possible?"

Quote from: Bren;815226They also vastly descrease the signal to noise ratio which matters to me even if it doesn't matter to you. I don't enjoy wading through tons of crap to find the one or two possible gems.

I am deeply, deeply unconvinced by your claim that all the Harry Potter fan-fiction out there has made it impossible for you to find J.K. Rowling's novels.

Part of me wants to say that a good system might be to have the copyright last as long as the creator or current owner is actively still producing it in a signifigant manner. Which would make edition treadmilling more or a problem than it allready is and possibly curb stunts like printing 5 copies and saying its still in print and so still yours. Hasbro and Games Workshop alone have a huge number of good games locked up and likely to never see light again short of fan scans.

Unfortunately with the advent of PDF only products. Something can stay actively produced as long as you can maintain a site shop or keep it sold on a host.

Quote from: rawma;815503You seem unable to discuss a change in the term of copyright without viewing it as an illegal action.

That seeming is a result of your lack of reading comprehension. I've discussed a number of alternatives to the present system in this same thread.

QuoteAnd again, despite insisting that you don't want eternal copyright, you advocate for that concept; creators granting access only makes sense if they would have eternal ownership of their creations otherwise.

:huhsign: They can grant access during the term of the copyright.

Quote from: TristramEvans;815521But you're still wrong, and I think you've gone past goalpost shifting and now are just randomly playing a game of "throw a dart at any goalpost anywhere".

Sure Nazis for the win. Works every time. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;815532You appear to be postulating a reality where there are people writing Grafton-derived fiction that's so incredibly amazing that people stop reading Grafton's originals... while simultaneously claiming that derivative works are crap that can't compete with the originals.

Make up your mind.

I postulated that increases in the signal to noise ratio could be a problem.

QuoteBased on everything I've seen, derivative works can only have a net positive effect on the original property.

Why do you think your opinion isn't shared by the corporations?

QuoteNo. You can't point to an example of someone giving people permission to ignore the copyright on their work and then say, "Isn't it great how copyright made this possible? What problem needs to be fixed?" That's like pointing at the OGL and saying, "Isn't it great how copyright laws made Pathfinder possible?"

The claim was made that society is losing out on great derivative works due to copyright laws. These are examples of authors creating without needing to violate copyright. Not an example of copyright permission.

QuoteI am deeply, deeply unconvinced by your claim that all the Harry Potter fan-fiction out there has made it impossible for you to find J.K. Rowling's novels.

OK. I am unconvinced by your claim that derivative works are invariably beneficial to the originals.

Quote from: Omega;815537Part of me wants to say that a good system might be to have the copyright last as long as the creator or current owner is actively still producing it in a signifigant manner. Which would make edition treadmilling more or a problem than it allready is and possibly curb stunts like printing 5 copies and saying its still in print and so still yours. Hasbro and Games Workshop alone have a huge number of good games locked up and likely to never see light again short of fan scans.

A diligence obligation requiring the copyright holder to make the work available is a good thing to require for renewal or for any long term maintenance. There are ways around the print only 5 copies shenanigans. You suggested one which is to make PDFs available or to make e-reader versions available.

Making copyrighted works available to the public should be part of the dilgence requirement for maintaining the copyright. It is in societies interest, and should be a quid pro quo for copyright, for existing works to be available rather than shelved.

Quote from: Bren;815491The point you bluntly made was that you lack any appreciation of nuance on this topic, of genocide whether committed by Germany or Canada, and of the logistics required or the morality involved in penalizing individual shareholders for the decisions made by corporate management. But by all means continue your feel-good knee-jerk chest thumping about corporate malfeasance without bothering to actually consider how to fix anything.

Straw man!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;815529The problem with that line of logic is that corporations exist to exercise human agency. So if you strip rights from a corporation, you're effectively stripping them human beings.

To take one obvious example, consider your freedom to speech: Any meaningful thing you will ever say is mediated through a corporation. Whether that's a publishing house, a bookstore, a broadcaster, your ISP, or your telephone company. Strip those corporations of the right to free speech and the government can legally prevent them from disseminating your speech.

Corporations don't need to be considered individuals to have free speech, SCOTUS has never made a determination between a media corporation and a reporter.  As a means of human agency, corporate speech is protected by freedom of the press - which governs the dissemination of ideas through all publication, not just journalism.  However, it does limit advertising and commercial speech.

Quote from: Bren;815393What I did insist on is that violating legal copyright is taking from someone. What jhkim and now apparently you can't seem to grasp is the difference between violating copyright which is illegal and using ideas that are out of copyright which is legal.

1) Violating copyright is not illegal i.e. carries criminal penalties unless it is above a certain monetary amount. One of the elements to prove in in a criminal charge involving copyrighted material is that the quantity of material involved is equal to or higher than the law require.

This is why you here news accounts of organization trying to set a high value on a download. Because if after multiplying by the number of download it is higher than limit then you gain the additional leverage of being able to file a criminal compliant against the violator.

2) Violating copyright however is a cause of action to sue somebody to cease violating the copyright and if the copyright is registered to sue them for monetary damages.

3) Ideas can only be patented not copyrighted.  

Quote from: Bren;815393jhkim, and possibly you, seem to have a notion that the ideas articulated by one person are inherently owned in common by their country, society, all mankind, or something and that the person articulating those ideas is allowed some control by society to be nice.

Ideas are naturally owned by everybody, that how ideas work compared to real estate and material possessions. You can unfairly deny access or use land, you can take somebody possessions without their consent. But an idea still can be used by its originator even it somebody else uses it without credit.

Moreso human being don't exist in a vacuum. The vast majority of ideas are built on the work of others. Harry Potter combines the tropes of Fantasy with the tropes of the English Boarding School and executes it brilliantly. And she deserves every cent of the millions she has earned. But as some point she is ethically bound to return the work to the public domain so other can use her works just as she used the work of other in building Harry Potter.

Remember that control over ideas or in the case of copyright control over the expression of an idea is the same as control over thought and speech, in short it is a form of censorship.

Since much of modern industrial civilization rests on people putting in hours of work in coming with ideas and how to use them society finds it beneficial to see that the originator of an idea is rewarded for his work. Thus we except the limitations on the natural freedom to use ideas freely for the greater good of getting more people to work on those idea. The mechanism for doing this to granting to the originator some type of exclusive use over a idea, (patent) or expression (copyright).

But lets not kid ourselves here, it is artificial, and it is fraught with all the dangers with any type of censorship  brings. That copyright originated by the crown heads of Europe to control the printing of books.

What copyright is not based on is some notion that all ideas are owned in common by society and society is granting a right to the creator to be nice or solely to stimulate the production of more ideas which in turn are automatically owned by society. Copyright is intended to be an exchange of value – protection of the creator's exclusive control of their idea is given by society for a limited time in exchange for the creator granting eventual public access to the ideas which the creator created.