Print

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

[Darkmere]

LordBucket and GlyphGryth, So as far as I see now, your argument is against copyright itself and copyright entitlements, not against artists getting compensated somehow per se.

See, I think Glyph is saying that... but what I honestly get from Bucket is that if someone goes to the trouble and expense of making a (something, CD's for example), you are literally entitled to zero profit from that, or at best you can sell the CD to a single person and then they suddenly should get the entirety of the creative control over it and you should be happy with your $20 and go home.

I'm convinced there's some sort of communicative breakdown here, as (it seems) everyone feels creators are entitled to be compensated, but HOW they are compensated is a huge factor. I feel that some form of copyright (SOME FORM, not necessarily the current enforcement standard) is the method of making sure people who create marketable goods and seek livable wages from doing so are not completely vulnerable to someone else saying "man, that was a good idea. I bet I could sell it, after contributing nothing to its development" and making a living exploiting someone else's work.

[Neonivek]

not against artists getting compensated somehow per se

I don't think anyone here is against artists being compensated for their work... but whether the current system to try to ensure that is just.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

so there's two of these...
i read both threads, though i didn't realise they were different 'till i noticed that my post wasn't on this one. it still aplies here, 'cuz it's really the same discussion, so i'm cross posting

i pirate freely and guiltlessly. i sometimes purchase stuff i can't pirate and often regret, my money is little and precious. i also sometimes purchase stuff i pirated and enjoyed, as a form of donation, and i've donated to toady and other free content creators recurrently.

i do want a system to be in place to incentive, sustain, and reward good creators, there is one in place right now that does it with disputable efficiency and it features copyright, but it's proving to be unenforceable and making legitimate customers' life harder, while barely hindering us pirates. i believe art, science, and entertainment should be free and subsidized by state run public institutions, private associations, and private donations; you fill out a proposal, request a set ammount of money for a set amount of time, and then send it out to these institutions along with your credentials\portfolio, or put it up on a kickstarter-like, and in the end your work becomes public domain and is rated by how much critics and laypeople appreciated it, giving you a better or worse chance to get further subsidies on future projects.
i don't like artificial scarcity. we should be offering up more stuff for free, it'd make for a better world

i'm quite poor by first world standards, though i recognise i've it better than a lot of people in this world, but i would have played a lot less games, seen a lot less movies, read a lot less books, and listened to a lot less music if i had to pay for all of it. I feel i am a better person for having had access to so much culture, and i feel it's very sad that people want to deny so many people something that is so abundant and so important.

[alexandertnt]

The vast, vast, vast majority of all creative work makes pretty much all the money it's ever going to make within 10 years at most.  I seriously question whether there's really any incentive to create new material in having copyright last much longer than that, and further suggest it encourages companies to keep making money form their popular but ancient IP rather than creating new ones.

Copyright is there to encourage people to invent new ideas etc, but it would seem that if the length of copyright is too long it has the opposite effect.

The two arguments I see regarding lifelong copyright is:

A) I am still alive, its still mine (which seems like a fair argument to me)
B) Lifelong (or just overly long) copyright hampers new development and causes stagnation  (which also seems like a fair argument to me)

I feel that some form of copyright (SOME FORM, not necessarily the current enforcement standard) is the method of making sure people who create marketable goods and seek livable wages from doing so are not completely vulnerable to someone else saying "man, that was a good idea. I bet I could sell it, after contributing nothing to its development" and making a living exploiting someone else's work.

That is also how I feel. It seems to me some form of system is necessary to ensure creators can continue to create and to encourage people to create.

I don't think anyone here is against artists being compensated for their work... but whether the current system to try to ensure that is just.

It appears LordBucket's argument is against any system ensuring that, not just against the current system. I think alot of people here are agreeing that the current system is either doing a poor job, or is just overkill.


Askot Bokbondeler, your idea is interesting, but it would seem to make it hard for small independents to do it alone. It would seem to nearly necessitate the need for a publisher, and that publiser would likely expect a return of at least break-even (for some sort of not-for-profit publicher) if they are giving you money. That would seem to make it difficult for those with less conventional and thus potentially less profitable ideas to get anywhere.

As someone who wants to be an independent game developer, I just want to produce a game and offer it for people to purchase. With the money I might make I could go on and spend more time making better games with more advanced tools. If my product were to fall into the public domain when I release it, it would require me to seek a publisher, or a kickstarter campaign, and to aquire the funds to do this before hand. This would put alot of stress on me to not fail and may inevidably make alot of people unhappy (tbh, I would rather be poor than make alot of people unhappy). in other words, I like the general idea of copyright because it allows me to function independently as an individual. I can simply say "Here is my game, who is interested?".

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Askot Bokbondeler, your idea is interesting, but it would seem to make it hard for small independents to do it alone. It would seem to nearly necessitate the need for a publisher, and that publiser would likely expect a return of at least break-even (for some sort of not-for-profit publicher) if they are giving you money. That would seem to make it difficult for those with less conventional and thus potentially less profitable ideas to get anywhere.

As someone who wants to be an independent game developer, I just want to produce a game and offer it for people to purchase. With the money I might make I could go on and spend more time making better games with more advanced tools. If my product were to fall into the public domain when I release it, it would require me to seek a publisher, or a kickstarter campaign, and to aquire the funds to do this before hand. This would put alot of stress on me to not fail and may inevidably make alot of people unhappy (tbh, I would rather be poor than make alot of people unhappy). in other words, I like the general idea of copyright because it allows me to function independently as an individual. I can simply say "Here is my game, who is interested?".

i don't think it makes it harder for small independent projects, you can still work on whatever you want and request donations, and since the paradigm had shifted to one where everything is donation based i expect these would be much more abundant. you could "sell" the completed game to one or several of these organizations, they'd probably hand out subsidies more easily to games that are at least partly developed than risk the money of contributors on promises. you can use the game as an example of your work to request funding for your next project or participate in contests with monetary prizes that would, again, increase your chances of getting your project approved or being picked up for a team.
the kickstarter-like could also manage the donations for you and award them periodically instead of giving it all upfront, so if you wanted to give up halfway someone could pick up where you left and reap the remaining share. your reputation would be tarnished though, and you shouldn't expect to have an easy time pitching another project. you could still work on a project at your expenses to try and redeem yourself

i expect the "market" would be flooded with advertisement funded studios and organisations, but if that is a problem for you as a customer you could simply join an association and pay a monthly fee to support advertisement free games of your favourite niche, and filling out surveys and voting in polls specifying where you want your funds to be spent, etc.

[Bauglir]

Just for the sake of argument, I think I would be okay with a copyright system like the one I'm about to outline, until somebody here points out the obvious flaws I've failed to notice. Trying to spell everything out here, just to make it as internally consistent as possible. Hopefully I haven't missed any typos, and I apologize for the faux legalese.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

1. A copyright is a right to produce copies of and derivative works of a creative work (as opposed to an invention, method, or trademark). A copyright holder can challenge the creator of another work (an "alleged infringer"), claiming that the alleged infringer has violated that copyright by producing an unauthorized copy or derivative work. If such a challenge is successful, the copyright holder is entitled to monetary compensation from the infringer.

2. A creator is granted a copyright for a work upon publication. That copyright can be sold. An agreement can also be made for ownership of a copyright to revert to a third party immediately upon creation, such as might be the case when an employee creates work for an employer, but such agreements can only have a single degree of separation between the creator and the new owner, and all such agreements must have explicit, specific terms describing the types of works whose copyrights are to be automatically transferred. Only a single legal entity may hold a given copyright, and a copyright held by no legal entity ceases to exist. A copyright is part of the estate of its holder.

3. A copyright expires after 10 years, and can be voluntarily expired by its holder at any time. Once a copyright expires, the work is forever public domain.

4. A copyright holder may release a license describing the terms under which another entity may reproduce or create derivative works of the copyrighted work, including one which describes such terms for doing so without the copyright holder's explicit permission. Where such licenses may conflict with one another or with other aspects of intellectual property laws, an alleged infringer may choose how each such conflict is resolved for the purposes of any challenges.

5. If a challenge is upheld, awards are not to exceed the profit produced by a derivative work. In the case of unauthorized copies, a reasonable estimate of profit lost should be made, but it should be remembered that not every copy represents a lost sale, and awards should not be punitive.

6. Fair use is an adequate defense against a challenge. A work's use is considered fair if the alleged infringer's work includes citation of the copyrighted work and
   a) is derivative and does not produce profit for the alleged infringer, such as artwork drawn by hobbyists and not sold, or
   b) is derivative and serves to further discussion on the original work, without replacing the copyrighted work, such as satire or other criticism, or
   c) copies only a limited portion of the copyrighted work, as a reference for original work or discussion of the copyrighted work, and not sufficiently to replace the copyrighted work, such as a review or report, or
   d) copies portions of the copyrighted work as part of an educational work or one otherwise intended to be used for teaching or research, such as a classroom textbook.

[alexandertnt]

I dont see donations being able to bring in anywhere near as much money. Ontop of that I am not sure where these investors would get the money to invest in projects if the end result is available free of charge. Games can cost millions, and while it is possible to get this money through some means, it is much harder. If they were subsidised by the state, that could work. But you would still then be paying for the game (even if you dont want to play it).

Your idea to use games as part of a portfolio still suffers from the same problem, I am still relying on these organisations to approve my project and provide the money, rather than being able to request money from individuals who are interested in using my completed product.

Advertisement funded games could work to some degree, but again rely on an external organisation to provide the funding. Also, What incentive does the advertisement company have to listen to polls and surverys?

But in the end, I don't see why a person shouldnt be able to request money for something they have spent time and effort to create in a way that suits them. If you think what they want is outrageous, you can just ignore them.

[XXSockXX]

Just for the sake of argument, I think I would be okay with a copyright system like the one I'm about to outline, until somebody here points out the obvious flaws I've failed to notice.

The two I find most obvious:
- 10 years is not nearly enough. Many artists are only "discovered" long after the creation of their work, many even after their death. There would only be a copyright if you "break through" immediately. This would work with some commercial driven art or computer games, but is not really applicable to music, literature etc, where something may only become relevant after decades.
And what about ongoing work, would Toady lose copyright of DF 10 years after he started creating it?

- You use the word "derivative" quite often, but "derivative" is difficult to define in that context. In fact almost all art is in some way derivative of something. The way that infringes upon copyright varies. In music often experts are needed to tell if a work is derivative enough to infringe on copyright, if it's not blatantly obvious as in cover versions or extensive sampling. In literature it is often the use of characters or names that is copyrighted.

[alexandertnt]

If they are discovered after their death, then they are too busy being dead to get much out of copyright.

10 years does seens somewhat too short though.

[Bauglir]

Hm, perhaps. My thinking on 10 years is that, by then, if the work hasn't been discovered and earned you money, it's probably not going to be. The Internet has accelerated, drastically, the rate at which media is consumed and discarded, even for works that aren't available online per se (for instance, the ability to order books through Amazon, even though the books themselves are physical copies). I was actually trying to err on the side of giving excess time. I could, however, be incredibly wrong. Ongoing works do raise a difficult point, too. I'd like to prevent endless copyright renewal by making tiny modifications, but a published WIP probably needs some treatment to ensure the protection doesn't run out before it's finished. Not sure how to deal with that right now. Finally, yeah, derivative is vague and determining if a work is derivative would be part of making a challenge to it. That's something that can't be hardcoded into legislation and needs to be left up to case-specific judgment.

[XXSockXX]

The internet has accelerated the rate at which media is discovered, true. But there is still a huge amount of old stuff to discover. If you're into more obscure music or literature, there is still a lot of stuff that barely got recognition 20-40 years ago, then gets discovered through the internet and leads to a breakthrough of the artists. That may not be that relevant commercially, as it is not exactly mainstream, but it would be wrong to have these artists not profit from re-releases.

Also it's about ownership. All relevant music by the Rolling Stones is older than 30 years, but I think they should have a say wether their music can be used in commercials or political campaigns. (IIRC Angela Merkels campaign 4 years ago used "Angie" and the Stones were not too happy about it.)

[Frumple]

... why would losing copyright stop the original artists from profiting from re-releases? You can use public domain stuff to make cash all you like, last time I paid attention to it. So long as someone'll pay for it, anyway.

[XXSockXX]

... why would losing copyright stop the original artists from profiting from re-releases? You can use public domain stuff to make cash all you like, last time I paid attention to it. So long as someone'll pay for it, anyway.

Because you can't make sure that YOU profit from it. I mean, just look at all the russian bootleg labels, in small markets that really hurts your profits. Also again, ownership.

I think the notion that artists should be able to make a living off their work is slightly wrong, there certainly should be the posiibility, but 90% of artists cannot make a living off their work and that has never been different.
The people who complain the most about piracy - besides the big corporations of course - are disappointed that they can't live off their work. But market saturation makes it pretty much impossible for every creative work to become that big of a commercial success. Just look at the music scene, where most mid-level successful artists have to have day jobs, even if they make a profit from their music. How many authors, musicians or painters can really subside on their work alone? I think the explosion of the computer game market in the last 20 years has mislead many people into thinking that they could make a living creating games, when there are just too many programmers and games to allow that.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

I dont see donations being able to bring in anywhere near as much money.

i can't change your mind here. i believe it wouldn't be the case, since pirating is so easy now i think we're already partly there, where whenever someone buys software they're already making a donation.

Ontop of that I am not sure where these investors would get the money to invest in projects if the end result is available free of charge.

these investors would be end users and organizations that make money off of distributing donations plus the sale of merchandising and physical goods like cd's, manuals, magazines, etc.

Games can cost millions,

bad games, often. good games are generally much cheaper, and those that are good and expensive aren't good because they were expensive. Nevertheless, i think millionaire productions would still exist.

and while it is possible to get this money through some means, it is much harder. If they were subsidised by the state, that could work. But you would still then be paying for the game (even if you dont want to play it).

you'de be paying an amount adjusted to how much you can pay

Your idea to use games as part of a portfolio still suffers from the same problem, I am still relying on these organisations to approve my project and provide the money, rather than being able to request money from individuals who are interested in using my completed product.

these organizations would be varied and represent the interests of their investors, you could pitch to a few narrow organizations that cater to the specific niche you're targeting. if you can't convince them with a finished game you'd have a hard time selling it either. all they're interested in is to be able to boast to have financed a lot of quality games so they can attract more donors interested in more games being made

Advertisement funded games could work to some degree, but again rely on an external organisation to provide the funding. Also, What incentive does the advertisement company have to listen to polls and surverys?

a lot. polls and surveys help them decide on which games to invest based on public demand, and which type of adds are more appropriate for which type of game, but when i mentioned polls and surveys i was talking about "advertisement free" game sponsors that gather investors by promising to listen to input and forfeiting advertisement

But in the end, I don't see why a person shouldnt be able to request money for something they have spent time and effort to create in a way that suits them. If you think what they want is outrageous, you can just ignore them.

as i said, i think it is sad to deny someone access to culture or knowlege, or anything that isn't scarce.
another argument is that the current system awards good marketing instead of awarding good work, in my proposed system creators would be awarded based on the popularity and reviews of their work after people have played said work, instead of tricking people into buying a buggy and\or shitty game

[Darkmere]

Just for the sake of argument, I think I would be okay with a copyright system like the one I'm about to outline, until somebody here points out the obvious flaws I've failed to notice. Trying to spell everything out here, just to make it as internally consistent as possible. Hopefully I haven't missed any typos, and I apologize for the faux legalese.

Only applying copyright to published works is really, really bad, unless you use a nebulous definition of "published". As my example... Say I work on a novel draft for 5 or 6 years. As is approaches completion, I take it to an art critic, who turns his copy into a publisher and gets his name on the author card, and all they money or fame or whatever. I prefer the current system (at least in the US) where everyone owns a copyright of literally everything they create, and you pay a bit extra to register that material if you're serious about marketability.

I've already run into gray areas as it is, and the system is pretty straightforward on the surface.