Print

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

[Frumple]

[snip]

... you seem to be assuming that lack of copyright necessarily entails lack of recognition, Vec, and that FOSS-style systems are going to turn those working within them into "cogs of someone else's message". Doesn't tend to work like that, from what I've seen (and it offers a good platform to get help gearing up one's own message). And it doesn't necessarily entail lack of recompense, either. Toady's a bit of an aberration, but donation driven or heavily supported efforts seem to be becoming more common. In a hypothetical where the current commercial option is a possibility, you'd almost certainly see more of that.

Those structures create different kinds of art than a single person working on their own vision, and they aren't prohibited by the existence of copyright or other IP law, so I'm not really sure how they're relevant.

LB was bringing up a world sans copyright/without the kind of structures that produce big commercial games. Relevance comes because, well, those structures are how that sort of thing gets produced without commercial backing.

In any case, I haven't particularly noticed the copyright/etc. force being much better at getting single people working on their own vision out there than anything else. Usually the most it does is make it easier to obscure the efforts of those that supported 'em, least as I've seen.

So your answer, in less words, is "it could totally happen! You just have to take my word for it!" instead of explaining how it would work.

Look to stuff like Open Morrowind. Point was, s'far as I could tell, that, hey, crowdsourcing and related efforts might just be able to do some pretty big stuff. People'll do things without direct monetary motivation sometimes.

If you would give over your labour/time/skillset for free you are a chump.

... so the world's volunteers are... chumps. Right

[MonkeyHead]

Maybe I should specify - if you give over your specialized skills etc. for free when people will willingly pay for it you are a chump.

[LordBucket]

Moreover, Toady gets paid from the work he does, in the form of donations

Nothing about voluntary donations contradicts anything I'm promoting. I'm arguing againat copyright.

Those structures create different kinds of art than a single person working on their own vision, and they aren't prohibited by the existence of copyright or other IP law, so I'm not really sure how they're relevant.

What's so special about other forms that you believe they necessarily couldn't be constructed without copyright?


Let me try to break down my position.

I assert that:

1) Copyright is undesireable because copyright enforcement involves coersion and force. Saying that it's "nice" for people who provide things for us to benefit from doing so is is all well and good, but when you start fining people and throwing them in jail for benefitting without paying for that benefit...that becomes an imposition on free will, which is something I prefer to avoid.

2) The "bad" that copyright in theory seeks to prevent isn't really bad. Copying is not stealing because it doesn't take something away from somebody. If you have a bicycle and I take your bicycle, you now no longer have a bicycle. If you make a song, and I copy the song...you still have the song. I haven't taken anything away from you. And, in case anyone wants to go there...yes, if I could push a button and "copy" your bike via a star-trek replicator or something, that wouldn't be "stealing" either.

3) I am not comfortable with the idea that the person who brings something into the world is entitled to prevent others from having it. It seems reasonable to me to suggest that they're not obligated to provide it to others...but to me, suggesting that they're entitled to stop others from having it just because they brought it into the world...that's just not how I would want to run a society.

For example, imagine the first human to discover fire. What if the social convention at the time had been that, since he discovered it...nobody else could have it without his permission. And if anyone watched what he did and "copied" the method, third parties would came and take it away and hurt them unless they gave the number of rocks or seashells that the guy who discovered it wants in exchange for his permission to have fire.

When I describe it that way it's obvious how ridiculous that is, right? But that's what copyright is. If you make a song, or a game or whatever...somehow this entitles you to stop others from reproducing it, and if they do...even though they haven't taken it from you...you're now allowed to have somebody else steal money from them and/or throw them in jail for you.

Why does anyone think a society that works that way makes sense?


When you people imply things like that it's more important for you to have games like Skyrim than it is to live in a world where people don't kick down your door and throw you in jail if you don't give people money...I...all I can say is that your worldview and mine are not entirely compatible.

[WealthyRadish]

Maybe I should specify - if you give over your specialized skills etc. for free when people will willingly pay for it you are a chump.

Mmm, still not following the chump argument. Many people make games as a hobby, or contribute to open source projects without pay. Modders can put tremendous effort into creating something within a game, and never see payment or recognition for it. Many doctors decide that a life prescribing drugs to fat westerners isn't worth their time, and do humanitarian work elsewhere in the world for little to no pay. People sacrifice for what's important to them, and I'd hope that money isn't what's important to most people.

[Vector]

When you people imply things like that it's more important for you to have games like Skyrim than it is to live in a world where people don't kick down your door and throw you in jail if you don't give people money...I...all I can say is that your worldview and mine are not entirely compatible.

I don't think piracy should be controlled by law.  I do think we should understand that it can be a large component of being a huge fucking jerk and react to those who undercut creators accordingly.  We should also understand that giving each other money for services rendered is what allows us job specializations and, therefore, civilization.  Being a moocher is a breach of the social contract.

There's like, the legal code attached to the court system, and then the social contract.  I think that piracy should, under the condition of a person grabbing stuff because "lulz I totally can," be a red mark in the social contract.  People should treat those who undercut creators for amusement (rather than lack of funds and lack of any way to get any) with extreme disdain, the same way you treat your loaded friend who keeps on "forgetting" her wallet when it comes time to pay for anything.

Mmm, still not following the chump argument. Many people make games as a hobby, or contribute to open source projects without pay. Modders can put tremendous effort into creating something within a game, and never see payment or recognition for it. Many doctors decide that a life prescribing drugs to fat westerners isn't worth their time, and do humanitarian work elsewhere in the world for little to no pay. People sacrifice for what's important to them, and I'd hope that money isn't what's important to most people.

There is a difference between "can pay but won't pay" and "can't pay so won't pay, but would like to pay."  People who do volunteer work are usually paid in the desire to pay, i.e. gratitude.

[WealthyRadish]

can pay or won't but may pay if pay can pay and pay or pay

I'm still a bit hungover, I'm going to drop it and take your word for it.
I think I get what monkey meant now.

[Bauglir]

Moreover, Toady gets paid from the work he does, in the form of donations

Nothing about voluntary donations contradicts anything I'm promoting. I'm arguing againat copyright.

You cut the sentence in half. Also it was an argument more directed at the use of Toady as a particular example than anything else, and you weren't the one using him as an example, so that's why it doesn't really answer anything you said.

Those structures create different kinds of art than a single person working on their own vision, and they aren't prohibited by the existence of copyright or other IP law, so I'm not really sure how they're relevant.

What's so special about other forms that you believe they necessarily couldn't be constructed without copyright?

In what way would Frumple's alternatives allow a DF-like project to be constructed? I'm not necessarily saying copyright is necessarily the only way to create them, but it is demonstrably a system that allows them. The copyright-free alternatives Frumple mentioned do not allow such things. It's also true that all alternatives I've seen also do not allow them, but perhaps that is the fault of my experience and not of reality.

1) Copyright is undesireable because copyright enforcement involves coersion and force. Saying that it's "nice" for people who provide things for us to benefit from doing so is is all well and good, but when you start fining people and throwing them in jail for benefitting without paying for that benefit...that becomes an imposition on free will, which is something I prefer to avoid.

Okay, that's fair enough. Punishments are always a negative when viewed on their own, so yes, in theory it would be better no to have to deal with them. I believe that there are many, many cases where punishing people for misdeeds is still correct.

2) The "bad" that copyright in theory seeks to enforce isn't really bad. Copying is not stealing because it doesn't take something away from somebody. If you have a bicycle and I take your bicycle, you now no longer have a bicycle. If you make a song, and I copy the song...you still have the song. I haven't taken anything away from you. And, in case anyone wants to go there...yes, if I could push a button and "copy" your bike via a star-trek replicator or something, that wouldn't be "stealing" either.

I disagree on what the aim of copyright is, then. It's not about who no longer has a thing, it's about allowing people to earn a livelihood doing art, instead of being forced to do art on the side of some other job. Were our economy such that people could freely go without working, then I agree that copyright would be totally unnecessary and could safely be dispensed with. This also answers the next point you make, I feel, because preventing others from having a thing is the only practical method of enforcing a right to compensation, at least that I can think of.

[LordBucket]

I don't think piracy should be controlled by law.

social contract

Ok. If you want to remove the legal consequences, but simply have a cultural environment where people generally choose to reward those who contribute to their lives...I think I'm ok with that.

Being a moocher is a breach of the social contract.

Only in conditions of scarcity. I don't begrudge my neighbor how much air they breathe, nor do I begrudge them the carbon dioxide I exhale that their flowers use.

Creating scarcity is not something I see as a desirable goal, even if doing so enables some people to benefit from the trade that might result from it.

[Leafsnail]

The real solution is to smash capitalism.

If that's not on the table then at the very least the copyright period should be reduced dramatically.  Enforcing copyright for decades doesn't encourage people to create things, it just allows a few specific publishers to continue cashing in on old works.  I don't think anyone has ever thought "Well I would write this book, but the idea that people will be able to enjoy my book for free 50 years after my death appalls me".

[Frumple]

In what way would Frumple's alternatives allow a DF-like project to be constructed?

Have... have you already forgotten Goblin Camp? S'mostly dead at this point, from what I recall, but there's nothing inherent to... any software, really... that somehow magically makes it impossible to be created via group effort, or somehow renders it incapable of being passed from developer to developer. There's nothing about DF that copyright made possible. That's all on Toady's dedication, insofar as I'm aware, and while copyright may or may not make that more likely, it's pretty far from necessary for it.

There's more than one decade+ literary project roaming around the net, collaborative efforts that have survived a great number of folks passing in and out of it. There's gaming projects like that as well (Dungeon Crawl, Angband, as examples).

[kaijyuu]

My only concern is that I want artists to be able to live off their work, rather than having their true goals and ambitions in life be relegated to a hobby.

There are copyright-free methods for people to make money off art, but they're all commission based or crowd funded or supported by donations, and those have a hell of a lot of problems of their own, since all of them require paying the artist BEFORE they finish their work*. I have enough trouble determining whether a game is worth my money already, when it exists and has reviews. Determining whether it's worth the cash before it's even made requires clairvoyance, else I'll get suckered in by people who make good pitches but bad games.



*Look at Toady's donation model. It requires him to NEVER finish dwarf fortress. Ever. It will not be done, because as soon as he finishes it, he loses his source of income.

[Vector]

There's more than one decade+ literary project roaming around the net, collaborative efforts that have survived a great number of folks passing in and out of it. There's gaming projects like that as well (Dungeon Crawl, Angband, as examples).

And the greatest novel ever written was 3/5 written by one dude, then the other 2/5 finished by some collaborators after his death.

Only in conditions of scarcity. I don't begrudge my neighbor how much air they breathe, nor do I begrudge them the carbon dioxide I exhale that their flowers use.

Creating scarcity is not something I see as a desirable goal, even if doing so enables some people to benefit from the trade that might result from it.

What I mean is that if you have resources and are benefiting greatly (knowingly, too) from the work of someone who is really suffering from lack of resources, and you don't hand them some of those resources, you are a shithead.

[MonkeyHead]

Supply and demand is the cornerstone of our most successful econoic system yet. If people could make things for free they would no doubt not need to charge for them.

I have A, and you have B. If you want some of A, give me some of B. I dont get why people think they dont have to part with any of thier B to get my A.

[LordBucket]

What I mean is that if you have resources and are benefiting greatly (knowingly, too) from the work of someone who is really suffering from lack of resources, and you don't hand them some of those resources, you are a shithead.

I wouldn't be comfortable making that assertion. I think removing the systems that create scarcity is a more likely solution than simply handing out resources to people who lack them.

I have A, and you have B. If you want some of A, give me some of B. I dont get why
people think they dont have to part with any of thier B to get my A.

Scenario 1:

Start condition (before exchange)
You: Have A
I: Have B

End condition (after exchange)
You: Have B
I: Have A

-- Nobody has a problem with that.

Scenario 2
Start condition (before exchange)
You: Have A
I: Have B

End condition (after exchange)
You: Have AB
I: Have B

-- This is what is in dispute. I approve of Scenario 2. Some people do not because it "robs" me of the opportunity to get A since you can get B without giving up A.

EDIT: fixed

I have A, and you have B. If you want some of A, give me some of B. I dont get why
people think they dont have to part with any of thier B to get my A.

That's exactly the point. You don't have to part with your games or music when I copy them.

[Vector]

Land ownership and specialization of labor, full stop.  Until you have a fully mechanized, collectively owned food, housing, and other essential resource system, you are going to have situations where one person is going to have to depend on another person's willingness to share.

Don't be silly, Bucket.