Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Economically, having a large number of entities legally allowed to produce identical product and compete only on price (or ancillaries like customer service) is far better for society as a whole than it is to have law that prevents such competition

You need to write this better.

One of the major reasons for Copyright is that it is a lot more risky and difficult to create something then it is to copy it.

If someone could just copy what you did and sell it for less, becuase they don't have to include the cost of creating it, then you just wouldn't create.

[Criptfeind]

"I won't create this, nor will I allow anyone else to create this, if you don't pay me for it!" is in its own right reprehensible.

Really. Can you elaborate on this? Because what it seems to me that you are saying is that people should make things for other peoples entertainment. Because. They should? People should actively work to entertain you because your entertainment is that important, certainly more important then the people who produce it.

[Matz05]

No, I get where he is coming from. Locking down a genera/etc. is exactly what modern copyright seems designed to do, and is obviously wrong.

[alway]

"I won't create this, nor will I allow anyone else to create this, if you don't pay me for it!" is in its own right reprehensible.

Really. Can you elaborate on this? Because what it seems to me that you are saying is that people should make things for other peoples entertainment. Because. They should? People should actively work to entertain you because your entertainment is that important, certainly more important thean the people who produce it.

FTFY.

I dunno why, but when people write 'then', not 'than', it annoys me.

And than people use it like this. Muahahaha! I have corrupted even your sacred 'than!'

Anywho; I suspect his statement was about the exclusivity bit. People having exclusive licenses to something that precludes all others from creating anything like it, even if those holding the exclusive licences don't plan on using them for anything. Cases where those with the license to use something don't use it, whereas there are groups which don't have the license who would use it to create projects.

[Matz05]

Yeah, one of the main uses for patents/copyright/etc. is to suppress something. It's sad, but it happens often. There should be a rule where the copyright/patent expires if you go two years without a commercial application of the copyright/patent after the first five years.

[alway]

Yeah, one of the main uses for patents/copyright/etc. is to suppress something. It's sad, but it happens often. There should be a rule where the copyright/patent expires if you go two years without a commercial application of the copyright/patent after the first five years.

That wouldn't really work well though; an easy loophole I can see immediately in that is the option to just do some token gesture to appease the requirement. 'This is our Sim Ant plush toy line! See? We're making use of the licence!' *sells 1 at a booth at GDC each year*

[Moghjubar]

So Zynga is going to have to hope someone makes a flash game on defending yourself in court over copyright/etc stuff, so they can copy it and use it in court.

EA, meanwhile, will buy up the license and turn it into an FPS.

Personally, at least in this case, I'm rooting for EA.

[Knirisk]

So Zynga is going to have to hope someone makes a flash game on defending yourself in court over copyright/etc stuff, so they can copy it and use it in court.

Don't give them any ideas. I like my Phoenix Wright games to be untouched by shady companies.

[alway]

So Zynga is going to have to hope someone makes a flash game on defending yourself in court over copyright/etc stuff, so they can copy it and use it in court.

Don't give them any ideas. I like my Phoenix Wright games to be untouched by shady companies.

Pay $0.05 or spam your friends' walls to object!

[McTraveller]

One of the major reasons for Copyright is that it is a lot more risky and difficult to create something then it is to copy it.

If someone could just copy what you did and sell it for less, becuase they don't have to include the cost of creating it, then you just wouldn't create.

I personally don't think there's any evidence to suggest that nobody would create, or that the rate of creation overall would be lower, if there was no guarantee of return on creation.  If nothing else, people always forget about the personal rate of return of creation: some people just like to create.

That's also forgetting the main reason some people create things: this is because the things make it easier to do other tasks - in this case you shouldn't care if someone else can make the tool cheaper than yourself, because the high value isn't in creating the tool but in the activity for which the tool is used.  All of history bears this out.

Now, this is slightly different when it comes to art, because art doesn't really help perform other tasks, but I don't think that means art needs entirely different arguments.

Really. Can you elaborate on this? Because what it seems to me that you are saying is that people should make things for other peoples entertainment. Because. They should? People should actively work to entertain you because your entertainment is that important, certainly more important then the people who produce it.

No, what I'm saying is that if you create something, and it's created in a way such that someone else can duplicate it, you arguably should not be able prevent someone from expending their own resources to duplicate it.  I would say you could prevent them from saying the replicated item is made by you, but that's it.  Think of it this way: what is more valuable, the idea of a hammer when you need one, or actually having a hammer when you need one?

Consider this: if I personally had the skill and I was able to paint something that looked essentially identical to a Monet or Picasso or whatever, it would still be worthless because it's not the image that has value, but the fact a particular instance of the image was created by the original author.

[Neonivek]

I personally don't think there's any evidence to suggest that nobody would create, or that the rate of creation overall would be lower, if there was no guarantee of return on creation.

Well it would create much worse factors of delivery.

Afterall distribution also costs money as well.

As for the "Nobody would create" you just have to step into the more expencive to create things.

[Moghjubar]

So Zynga is going to have to hope someone makes a flash game on defending yourself in court over copyright/etc stuff, so they can copy it and use it in court.

Don't give them any ideas. I like my Phoenix Wright games to be untouched by shady companies.

Pay $0.05 or spam your friends' walls to object!

Pay $0.50 for a star witness with 3 uses!  This weekend only!

[scriver]

So Zynga is going to have to hope someone makes a flash game on defending yourself in court over copyright/etc stuff, so they can copy it and use it in court.

EA, meanwhile, will buy up the license and turn it into an FPS.

Personally, at least in this case, I'm rooting for EA.

It seems they need to call in Stiric Steel, SPACE LAWYER!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ohgods, why do I make injokes I only share with like two other people on the forums...

[Criptfeind]

No, what I'm saying is that if you create something, and it's created in a way such that someone else can duplicate it, you arguably should not be able prevent someone from expending their own resources to duplicate it.  I would say you could prevent them from saying the replicated item is made by you, but that's it.  Think of it this way: what is more valuable, the idea of a hammer when you need one, or actually having a hammer when you need one?

Consider this: if I personally had the skill and I was able to paint something that looked essentially identical to a Monet or Picasso or whatever, it would still be worthless because it's not the image that has value, but the fact a particular instance of the image was created by the original author.

First off. I really don't think that art is a good comparison to almost anything. Since the price of it is pretty much connected to nothing as you pointed out.

Secondly. If I spent many years and millions of dollars making the perfect hammer. Then you came along and made a exact copy (presumably though some magic or spying that allows you to see all the hidden steps I need to go though to make sure then density and whatnot is perfect) then yeah. I would be pissed. You don't seem to understand that the idea is often the hardest and most expensive part to make. Especially when talking about software. Saying they used their own resources to make something is fucking ludicrous when the making costs cents and the idea costs millions.


Edit: I just read your response to Neonivek. You clearly don't understand the simple idea that stuff is hard to make. People can't make things because they want to. Seriously. You get some stuff like Dwarf fortress (which by the way if it got no money development would be even slower) but to actually turn out large amounts of high quality stuff you need, oh, say. Money. Only on a pure donation based product can you get away with not caring who takes your stuff. And even then you at least need to try to protect it purely for selfish reasons.

This is simply it in most things now a days: The making of the idea is much much much harder and more expensive then the making of the product. You thinking might have worked like... eight thousand years ago. But we sorta moved past that.


Edit: Actually. I still have my question unanswered. Why is it immoral for people to not create when they feel they have not been promised enough compensation?

[Matz05]

No, we haven't. If you advance the art of hammermaking, it's only a matter of time before your innovations become standard. When that happens, either you have a monopoly on hammers, or you have competitors who are also allowed to create "better" hammers. This is why patents MUST expire within a relatively short time. Anything else leads to total technological stagnation.