Copyright laws

The problem is, that you are trying to envision a "what if copyright would disappear tomorrow" situation, while I'm talking about a long term "how the gradual increase of piracy will shift business models" situation.

Yes, right now most consoles aren't sold for enough profit to cover the development of system-selling hardware, but this is only because software is expected to sell for itself. What do you think, if the ratio of pirated console games will gradually increase in the next 10 years, what will Nintendo do? Sadly go out of business trying to sell them, or gradually raise hardware prices to survive, and continue making Mario and Zelda even for free, so people will pay for that hardware?

With the same logic, I wouldn't even rule out Apple contracting musicians so people will have a reason to buy new ipods, or TV makers paying for movie production.

But that's just one idea I came up with a few weeks ago. The industry will figure out many others. The point is, you cant simply say "but this is not how it works now".

The same goes for ads and state fundings. You just say that it wouldn't be enough, assuming that I'm talking about the currently expectable levels of revenues.

Even if copyright would really collapse tomorrow, low production cost companies like Pop Cap Games could simply slap a banner ad on their game menus, and keep making profits with professional games.

Yes, many current big budget products couldn't be made, but their publishers would also shift to a still-profitable smaller business model, until they figure out how to gather big money again.

edited 11th May '11 1:38:59 PM by EternalSeptember

Well, that would certainly be your right to make that choice, but making the choice for others is where questions occur. Not to mention authors who have other reasons for preferring people not create fan-fiction, such as wanting to encourage people to create their own work and not just copy them.

You're just showing how ridculous your argument is.

What's ridiculous about it?

How? It could be, and has been, a real case as well.

Did you miss what I said on the prior page because you were distracted by the false premise I set aside?

Personally if I could I would make the choice for others and make fanfiction and fanart legal and protected from lawsuits so long as the stuff wasn't being sold for profit without the copy right holder's permission, but sadly...SADLY I CANNOT FORCE MY VALUES ON THE WORLD.

I totally would if I could though.

Never really saw a reason to outright forbid it and sue people for it that I thought was valid. Not even "I want them to go make their own stuff and not make stuff with my things".

edited 11th May '11 1:59:40 PM by Aondeug

Big difference: there is some non-zero cost to translating the components of a chemical into the chemical itself. (And I'm actually for banning certain chemicals, which causes the whole analogy to fall in on itself.)

edited 11th May '11 1:59:35 PM by Yej

You can, with material you own the rights to, many others HAVE done so. Sorry, I guess I should have been more specific.

There is a non-zero cost to bouncing electrons around as well.

Yes and I want it so that no one has the right to forbid not-for-profit fanworks of their IP and that no one has the right to sue people for making them. Key phrase being no one. Then again I am a fanfic and fanart making bitch with a severe hard-on for how Greek mythology has developed and what is done with it even in these days.

And that's where the questions occur.

Though really, copyright law does provide for just that, it may just be terms which you don't find acceptable.

The questions must be stamped out and murdered with a big thumping pole. For the sake of really shitty porn with Anne Rice vampires on ff.net. I'll beat you one day, Rice. ONE DAY.

Anne Mc Caffrey's rules will fall too...ONE DAY.

...wait why do all these people I know of have the name Anne.

edited 11th May '11 2:29:18 PM by Aondeug

No reason, there's plenty of other authors who oppose fanfiction.

This is true. Maybe I just really like the name Anne and remember it well. This is likely it...YES.

One might feel optimistic and say "Perhaps what people want will make governments budge."

Still, governments routinely ignore what the people want. Instead, they attempt to force the people to comply with what their masters (economic interests and garden variety nosy bastards) want them to do.

It doesn't work (the populace will, after all, do whatever the Hell they want), but now and then, a poor sod is caught and suffers a draconian penalty. It's completely backwards.

I just had a vision of a future where the populace has completely stopped paying for art, and found ways to skip all the ads before and after it. All major artistic endeavors will be funded with Product Placement.

Someone, make it stop!

Well, I'm for copyright in the sense of balancing the creator's right to make money for it, versus the public's right to have the work enriching their society (whether through availability or derivative works).

But it's definitely a mess. I mean, being an abandonwarist, I'd also like to broach the issue of creators and companies sitting on a work and refusing to make it available, to the point where the public side suffers. Either because the work will be lost forever before it can actually pass into the public domain, or because it's no longer available as an artisic influence to the next generation of creators. (Or even just available to people who simply want to experience the darn thing and would actually be willing to throw their money at it if anyone was actually willing to take said money.)

I also feel I have to bring up the perverse situations where, thanks to copyrights being traded forever between the dusty basements of companies, the people who actually created and wrote the lion's share of a work no longer have any legal control over their own work. So in those situations copyrights, ironically, actually take power away from creators.

(I'm thinking situations where, like, IIRC Jane Jensen actually would love to make a new Gabriel Knight game or even at least a novel, with a company that's interested, but she can't. Nor can she simply go back and work with the company that does have the rights, because they're not interested. It just feels utterly demented. And yet that's how the legality works.)

edited 11th May '11 4:15:26 PM by Jeysie

Copyright comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what a work is.

A work is a piece of culture you make. A work is not a product and should not be sold.

I will not and do not pay for works, nor do I expect anyone to pay for any I may make in my lifetime.

From a practical standpoint, well, just read the rest of the thread, basically. I have nothing to say that hasn't been said.

edited 11th May '11 5:24:44 PM by SpainSun

As one who hopes to produce something in the future, I kinda want Copyright to exist and be relevant. Piracy can be minimized in many cases by offering perks that are difficult or impossible without piracy, like good tech support for regisyoutered purchases. What concerns me is trademarks; I'm not a lawyer, but I think those are some of the reasons why so many authors are butthurt over fan-made stuff; they contain trademarks which must be protected lest the creator lose rights to them. The only way to avoid that is with plausible deniability of its existence, hence many authors state publicly they don't read fan works.

Certainly what happened to Damnatus is a travesty of IP laws, as the unique combination literally benefited no one.

Just abolish copyright. Then if art suffers because of it, get them paid Whuffie style with a reasonably high cap. What does anyone think of this idea?

edited 11th May '11 5:31:50 PM by LoveHappiness

That's a whole other can of worms besides just copyright.

More and more small-scale and cheap works are the future. 'Sides, we as a society are too addicted to entertainment. It doesn't make us happier and it is a vast waste of resources. The problem is commercialism. People should make their own art, without feeling entitled to imprison or fine those who view their work and don't donate. Information should be free.

edited 11th May '11 6:03:46 PM by LoveHappiness

But then creators aren't allowed to actually get paid for what they do. Which means a creator isn't allowed to be free to actually be a creator, as opposed to "be a creator while doing some other day job".

Not to mention that it's not just a matter of commercialism, it's a matter of having creative control over your work as well, since copyright also deals with derivative works. (Although ironically copyright doesn't currently address that properly either, thanks to the perverse situation I already mentioned.)

edited 11th May '11 6:08:19 PM by Jeysie

QFT.

"But then creators aren't allowed to actually get paid for what they do"

Well I am a communist...

But I don't see the issue here. There is an industry and an expectation of being paid for someone looking at some ideas you came up with. But that doesn't mean there should be. I mean suppose the you worked to build a cool statue?

There's also the fact that, by having a monopoly on the creative process (basically what copyright is), it makes it worthwhile to invest more than the bare-minimum into a work, hiring and paying other professionals for music, art, writing, etc., that go into say, a typical game (not just talking AAA titles, your average well-known indie applies too). Theoretically a single creator could do it themselves, but the result would take much longer and there's no incentive for them to put a ton of money up on it if they can't expect to make money. Copyright basically says "Oi! Hands off this property while I work to make it something you'll wanna actually pay to play, or at least tell your friends so my advertisers get hits!"

Otherwise? First word of the concept gets out, and there's a bunch of knockoffs vying for popularity and at a fraction of the quality 'cause they were pounded out so quickly. Doubly so if the only value of it is people recognizing it like with the Wuffie thing; the first person who goes memetic with their game, no matter its quality, gets all the credit, even if it's not the one with the original idea. By the time he finishes his, there's no guarantee he'll have an audience.