Piracy

[Majoru Oakheart]

The creator of the art most definitely does own that art.

By law, I agree. Whether that SHOULD be the case, we all have our own opinion on. I don't think so.

And now we get to the crux of or your position. "Art is great, but get a real job.

Consider your ignorant self-important ridiculous diatribes--ignored. You, personally as a human, are not worth the effort to engage in any kind of dialogue. If you are of the opinion I think that I am better than you--good, because I do. You're wasting pixels on my screen.

I hate to bring this topic back up again, but I don't believe I'm better than you. I don't think art isn't important. I think it needs to be around to explore the human condition to grow as a society and as individuals. I'm no good at it, otherwise I would love to do it.

I think this needs to be clear for anyone reading this thread. Please, go out there, think creatively. Do it because I can't. But don't do it for self centered motive like turning a million dollar profit and living in a nice house. Do it because you want to add to society. Please don't get hung up on "ownership", "rights", and profit.

Don't be the guy suing the 80 year old grandma who doesn't own a computer for downloading a 20 dollar movie because the first 300 million wasn't enough profit for you while claiming anyone who copies your work is self-centered and greedy.

I create a painting. I enter into a partnership with someone (a publisher) to make money with it.

If anyone else wants to use my idea to make money, they can, as long as we make an agreement first.

If someone is going to profit from publishing my work, I deserve a cut.

Maybe, maybe not. This is where the complicated part comes in. What counts as an idea that deserves payment and for how long?

Say copyright laws were in effect as far back as the stone age. The guy who invented the wheel copyrights it and forces anyone who makes round things that roll pay him a fee. It becomes so useful that nearly everyone wants it. So, the licensing fees go up.

How many products would not have gotten made in today's society if that were the case? How many companies couldn't have afforded to make some of the things we now hold as basic luxuries due to the licensing fees?

Now, imagine if this continues in the future. Who knows what we are creating today that might become the most basic building block of all technology in the future. And whatever company comes up with it will have a stranglehold on the entire world. That's what I'm hoping doesn't happen.

I'm actually surprised to hear such a dissenting point of view on these boards. Nearly everyone I know agrees with me(I'm not saying this to put anyone else's opinions down, I'm just saying that I figured the position was near universally held due to my experiences).

I was just listening to a podcast of TWiT(This Week in Tech) the other day and the entire panel of tech guys there agreed that something needed to be done about the copyright laws in the entire world because they weren't working. Most of them suggested a solution that would favor copyright holders making money in a way other than selling their goods, and actually capitalizing on the fact that everyone can get their products for free instead of criminalizing it.

May I ask if you currently download copies of works that are more recent than 5 (or 10) years?

Yeah, I currently do. I currently download nearly everything I can find.

However, at the same time:
-I watch every movie I find interesting within the week it comes out in the theaters. If it's really good then 2 or 3 times.
-I've bought a copy of EVERY 3e and 3.5e product WOTC has made AND bought a copy of every 4e book they've made.
-My favorite band is Barenaked Ladies. I've bought every album they've ever produced. Some in both mp3 and physical forms(Mostly because they sold their MP3s on a USB stick and I felt the stick still had value. The rest was a donation to the band)

But I've also downloaded mp3 of all their albums to put on my iPhone. I've downloaded a copy of all the WOTC books in PDF format(which is what I answered in the poll), and I download my favorite movies when I feel like watching them.

I hope I haven't crossed the line again on this subject. It really is an interesting subject and I feel there should be a way to discuss it without getting political. If this is still crossing the line, let me know and I'll just stop talking. I'm just really enjoying this conversation.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Note: I'm an artist. I know the current piracy stuff is lunacy.
I fortunately don't have ot use my skill t feed my family, so that is an honest caveat (then again I'm disabled).
But, I put my work up on galleries, knowing scuzzbags can copy it, claim they made it or sell it.
Tough.
If I went around worried about thieves etc all the time life wouldn't be worth living!

You cannot stop digital piracy nor should you try! It's self defeating.
Instead, beat them at thier own game: offer folk goods they want at prices they like, and realize excessive control = self destructive.

Yeah the AIDS drugs scenario is a valid one in all this

Another point ot piracy is one folk vastly overlook: it's a vitally important social archive.

Can you imagine how much server space it would take to hold all the clips, gags, pics etc etc there are out there?

Another is: do youw ant ANYONE to control the internet? I sure as hell don't.
History proves they'll abuse it.

 

[drothgery]

Say copyright laws were in effect as far back as the stone age. The guy who invented the wheel copyrights it and forces anyone who makes round things that roll pay him a fee. It becomes so useful that nearly everyone wants it. So, the licensing fees go up.

You're confusing patent and copyrights here. And the important thing on that point is that although copyright terms keep getting extended, patent terms have not. So good ideas hit the public domain in a decade or two.

My looney idea is that copyrights should last 20 years, registered for a nominal fee (you must register within five years of initial publication if you want to register at all); registered copyrights can be renewed for about $5000 for another 20 years -- the idea being that anything you're not willing to spend $5K to keep out of the public domain isn't worth it; it's not a huge amount of money, but it's more than most people will spend on something that's not making them more than that -- and fees exponentially increase with each renewal (i.e. $10,000 for the 2nd, $20,000 for the 3rd, $40,000 for the 4th, etc.). So Disney can keep its stuff out of the public domain indefinitely as long as they're willing to pay for it, without keeping most works out of the public domain for 150 years.

 

[drothgery]

Yeah the AIDS drugs scenario is a valid one in all this

Do you have any idea how much pharma R&D costs? It's really, really expensive, and takes a long time. And for every drug that's useful, dozens fail at some point or another in the process.

 

[xechnao]

Do you have any idea how much pharma R&D costs? It's really, really expensive, and takes a long time. And for every drug that's useful, dozens fail at some point or another in the process.

Yeah, so? We could have cured cancer already for what I know, yet we have failed to make the investment - cause it seems the current culture favors to invest... elsewhere. This is how I see the current micro-macro model you seem to be defending here.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think this needs to be clear for anyone reading this thread. Please, go out there, think creatively. Do it because I can't. But don't do it for self centered motive like turning a million dollar profit and living in a nice house. Do it because you want to add to society. Please don't get hung up on "ownership", "rights", and profit.

As soon as you come up with a way to make a living as an artist/writer/whatever without worrying about profit, you let me know.

Until then, I'll continue to have the audacity to want to get paid for my labor.

 

[DaveMage]

I think this needs to be clear for anyone reading this thread. Please, go out there, think creatively. Do it because I can't. But don't do it for self centered motive like turning a million dollar profit and living in a nice house. Do it because you want to add to society. Please don't get hung up on "ownership", "rights", and profit.

I think that's way too high a standard to demand.

If there's no financial incentive to create, then a LOT less will get created.

That's life in modern times. It's gotta be about the money at least somewhat, and in most cases, more than "somewhat".

 

[drothgery]

Yeah, so? We could have cured cancer already for what I know, yet we have failed to make the investment - cause it seems the current culture favors to invest... elsewhere. This is how I see the current micro-macro model you seem to be defending here.

I really shouldn't have replied. AIDS drugs are really way off-topic for this thread, as it's about patents, not copyrights, and veers very deeply into real-world politics.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's gotta be about the money at least somewhat, and in most cases, more than "somewhat".

Actually, it doesn't necessarily have to be, even in these times. But it sure as heck usually is, true enough.

And yeah. . .

As soon as you come up with a way to make a living as an artist/writer/whatever without worrying about profit, you let me know.

Until then, I'll continue to have the audacity to want to get paid for my labor.

Hear, hear.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You're confusing patent and copyrights here. And the important thing on that point is that although copyright terms keep getting extended, patent terms have not. So good ideas hit the public domain in a decade or two.

I agree. However, they are still 2 sides to the same coin. It's all about "Intellectual Property". Or, ideas that someone owns. It's good that Patent lengths haven't been extending. I hadn't heard this and I'm glad that is the case. Still, if it's good for ideas, why doesn't the same apply to Copyright? I don't see one being completely different than the other.

My looney idea is that copyrights should last 20 years, registered for a nominal fee (you must register within five years of initial publication if you want to register at all); registered copyrights can be renewed for about $5000 for another 20 years

Yeah, and this sort of idea I could get behind. But, I think the terms should be shorter. I think these sort of long term copyrights made sense in the past, but as technology and the spread of information increases, the amount of time one person should own an idea should decrease.

In today's world, an episode of Seinfeld is worth almost nothing. I'd say that 90+ percent of everyone who wants to see them already has. Sure, people like the show and there might be sales of the DVDs going on, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is less than 10% of what it was when the show was on.

Anyone who wants to can download the episode off of somewhere on the internet. And it is, frankly, just old news at this point(even though I really liked the show).

I'm certain they could make a trickle of an income from the sales still going on. But, why should they be able to? I'm certain that the income that most TV/Movie studios are making off of residuals is half the reason they don't have a need to actually come up with new shows that are any good. Even if they make moderate to no real profit off of a show, they don't care because they rest on the funds made from all their previous work.

I guess I'm just coming from the point of view as a normal person who isn't involved in the industry. If I got fired tomorrow, I'd probably be unable to feed myself after a couple of months of living off my savings. I'd need a new job right away. On the other hand, an author whose ever written anything that got really popular can live comfortably for years, if not the rest of their life off of their work. I wouldn't be able to. Nothing I've done in my life gives me money forever. I'd still like to think the work I did was valuable. The law is telling me that my work was less valuable than an author/artist/writer/musician simply because I did a service instead of thinking creatively.

And it is this income that makes these companies/authors want to sue people and to lobby for tougher and tougher copyright laws. The rest of us get treated like criminals. I don't think its right.