OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[pawsplay]

And PDFs require on computers and bandwidth. I don't see an argument there, just an observation.

 

[Vigilance]

And PDFs require on computers and bandwidth. I don't see an argument there, just an observation.

Wait, are you arguing that computers are a limiting factor to replication without the creator being rewarded?

I think computers have made such replication easier, not harder.

That's an argument FOR reasonable protections.

Not to be confused with unlimited copyright as it stands, but your argument, that copyright should regress to where it was during Aristophanes' lifetime isn't any less extreme.

 

[occam]

I'm responding to the part of your post that addresses my question: How does a creator make a living? Arguments about the inevitability of free information and the like are side issues, IMHO, to what I think is most pressing: How do you prevent the destruction of a vibrant culture of widely available artistic works in an era where duplicates of such work are distributed freely?

There will always be people who love what they do and will do it whether they are paid for it or not. But the question is then of course whether this is enough material to sustain the entertainment of mankind and if it's of high enough quality. If it's not, then you'll get folks that want something better, they'll pay something to create. Whether that's n individual that finances a writer for a book or a community that finances a film, or a state that does both. Imagine that instead of paying for all the copyrighted you buy now, you'll pay a 'tax'. That is a huge amount of money, no one is trying to get rich off it, so essentially everything can go to the creators, instead of all the support staff (marketing/finance/it support/management/etc.).

Self-funded or patron-funded art will never be enough to replace what we have now; there simply isn't the money or the will. Let's discuss the other option, some sort of taxpayer funding for creative works.

You'll still need staff. You'll still need marketers, people looking at finances, lots of IT support, etc. Perhaps not as much if you have essentially single-payer entertainment in the form of a government, but then you have government itself discovering and promoting artists, negotiating with them, making decisions as to what is and isn't worth funding: an Orwellian scenario if I've ever heard of one.

Alternatively, you can have government functioning as an intermediary with corporate representatives of artists, which is pretty much like what we have now, except that instead of being compensated directly (more or less) by consumers, these representatives' revenues come indirectly from government. You still have the possibility of government having a greater hand in deciding what's worthy of funding, but more immediately, you've removed most of the incentive the artistic representatives have to find and produce quality creative works. Either the representatives are funded by sheer volume of the works they produce with only minimal quality controls, or you have government directly assessing the quality of creative works. If you think the market is swamped with pablum now, just wait until the era of government-funded entertainment.

I still don't see how any of these options work without a dramatic loss in the variety and/or amount of creative products we enjoy today.

 

[occam]

It will change, as one cannot stop filesharing.

Do I pay for e-books or PC games? No. I buy them to support the developers/authors to create yet another good book/softwerw. Thus in my view I'm actually invest in the future (otherwise I would feel stupid to pay for something I can have for free).
Do I buy books because I cannot download them? No. I buy them because after staring at the screen for 12 hours a day I love to sit down and read a physical book (and printing out dowloaded books is against the environment).
See, people would pay for comfort, or to say "well done!"

The problem is that, according to your premise, this is still self-defeating. So you'll occasionally pay for a book or game or other creative work to support the creator, or to enjoy the convenience of a physical product. However, as more and more people are comfortable with using only the freely distributed work, the prices of paid goods go up in order to cover the costs involved in creation. How many people are going to pay $50 for a mass market paperback book, or $300 for a video game, when they could have it for free? Not enough. Eventually, no amount of price increase will support the cost of creation when only a few are willing to pay.

Again, the question is, where does the money come from to pay creators to create?

 

[Cergorach]

@occam:
1.) The government doesn't need to generate a profit.
2.) It doesn't need a multi million/billion marketing budget to promote something new (to make it a 'success').
3.) To date government 'management' has been a big mess, but (at least around here) serious attempts at streamlining government 'management' have been going on for the last few years. It isn't perfect (yet), but it's getting there.
4.) Salaries for content creators can be more balanced. Why should a singer (who can't really sing) receive a multi million salary, while a good historical writer gets a pittance?
5.) If there isn't enough, then people will be motivated to finance it themselves.

Government funded and directed entertainment isn't such a bad thing imho. Many years ago we only had two public dutch channels (we had one paid for movie channel). The only time you had commercials was around the news segment (at six and eight I believe). The quality of the programming was high (relatively to what is available now). Since then we now have around ten channels, more commercials then actual programs (slightly exaggerated), and just too many crappy programs. I've kicked out my TV a long time ago, I watch the series I like on my computer (I have a reasonably big DVD collection), and maybe watch something twice a year on my parents TV. I'm not the only one that complains about the quality of the programming (reality TV is the curse of the demented mind).

The same goes for music, maybe I'm old (31), but most of the good music came from before 1990. Records are sold more on sex appeal then actual singing quality, I might have complained about Madonna twenty years ago, but her (live) voice is like an angel compared to most of the 'talent' of this day and age. The actual decent music is often produced by the smaller bands that don't have large contracts.

Entertainment is starting to look like a crap shoot, if it doesn't make you millions right away, you flush it. And with enough marketing millions, even the crappiest production can become successful.

[edit]
@Lizard:
I would agree with you, if it where not for guys 10 years younger saying the same damned thing, DJs no less. I'm not saying there isn't any good music around, but less imho.
[/edit]

But I think we're getting a bit off topic ;-)

 

[Lizard]

@occam:

The same goes for music, maybe I'm old (31), but most of the good music came from before 1990.

Bwaahahahah!

No "maybe" about it, dude. YOU'RE OLD.

Chief sign of aging? Not senility. Not grey hair. Not starting to keep track of your bowel movements. It's when you say "This stuff these days isn't music! It's noise! It's all a bunch of commercial pap produced by record companies and marketers! Back in MY day, we had REAL music!"

Everything you say has been said before, for every decade going back to, probably, the Stone Age.

"Ugh. New music made hitting wood on rocks. This stupid. Real music mad hitting ROCKS on rocks. Kids this epoch, no idea what music is. Good music stopped in paleolithic. Neolithic so-called music just noise. Ugh."

And I would dread a world where the only art was that which the government saw fit to fund. It would come in two varieties: Patriotic, jingoistic propaganda when the right wing was in charge, and meaningless, incomprehensible trash when the left wing was in charge.

 

[Piratecat]

Back on topic, please, folks. It's an interesting topic, but is veering off-track.

 

[pawsplay]

Not to be confused with unlimited copyright as it stands, but your argument, that copyright should regress to where it was during Aristophanes' lifetime isn't any less extreme.

I wasn't making that argument, I was simply refuting the argument that no copyright = no incentive to create.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The whole discussion of copyright and other rights is why I think ultimately the OGL is flawed. Since this ties in together, I'll link the two, hopefully not veering off course .

Creators create for many reasons. However, there needs to be incentive to create. In a free market society, writers and creators expect to get paid. It is very short-sighted to say "people will still play music regardless of whether they get paid". Well, having a hobby is one thing, but I think it would prevent many people from creating, outside of short term creative spurts while they are in High School or College, then they gotta get a job for financial security and have to give up their time.

It's erroneous to think that creators will do it solely for the pure joy of creation. Mark Evanier has some words of wisdom in his three part (1 ,2 ,3 ) essay on this, and how that attitude can be exploited. JMS of Babylon 5 fame stated, when asked by a fan why he wouldn't release the final chapter of Rising Stars during a time when he was arguing with Top Cow, stated it would make a writer look like a patsy if they gave up their creation "just for the sake of the fans".

That's where copyright (and trademarks/patents) come in. It allows people to control their ideas. I believe in private property rights, and I believe that a person who creates should be rewarded. Heck, I also believe we in the US should adopt the "Moral Rights " doctrine European countries respect.

The complaint about "Intellectual Property" not being a real term flies in the face of what I believe is the right of people to make income of their expression of ideas. I see a lot of the "piracy is not theft" arguments as akin to Euphemisms that are designed to make people feel less guilty.

I think that trumps the rights of the public to get free content. I am against copyright abuse, but I also think that unlike when a drug or invention loses a patent, whether or not Mickey Mouse ever enters the public domain is a minor issue in the needs of a society.

I think it's a bit erroneous to complain about the "rich people", when they deserve the compensation. Charles Schulz is an example of a creator who got very rich off his ideas which I think he rightfully deserved--in fact, he didn't even get off the ground with the definitions of Charlie Brown, Snoopy, and Linus for almost 5-6 years. If some people had their way it might never have taken off before it became public domain.

Removing copyright altogether would lead to a form of "info-socialism", but instead of being owned by the state it would be owned by the public--and it would still be exploited by the mass media--somebody would collect all the hard work of authors and repackage them for their own benefit. This flies in the face of basic economics. Socialism might have some benefits for key municipal needs, but the capitalistic market (with some regulation) seems to be the better way to foster economic growth.

Here's how the OGL ties into all these theories.

The OGL allows the basic 3rd Edition D&D ruleset--or at least the key subsets to it--to be copied for free. It turns the rules of D&D into a commodity. It also doesn't not protect the others from their contributions. It basically forces a price--any rules innovation is "free".

What this does is create a weird market situation. You have transformed the D&D space into one where there is a perfect competition. The rules are free. Perfect Competition when the price competes with free is no profit. People have to differentiate via things like settings and situations.

While it's great to be able to use the D&D rules in your own creation is great for the fans, and created a lot of creative products, it can hurt D&D's bottom line, and the guys running D&D were foolish to turn into a commodity the item that represents the majority of their income. I would say it's actually harder to design a full-fledged game than write a scenario. So, I understand it from their perspective. And, I think if D&D gets significantly hurt from this, it will actually affect the whole marketplace. Until another game overtakes D&D in the tabletop market, the whole health of the industry relies on this factor.

Finally, I just wanted to say when I argue these points it's not to troll, it's to get people to critically think about things. Sometimes people follow their own dogmas or repeat things without thinking about the facts. When I referred to the anti-copyright movements as akin to hippies, it was based on how I see similar arguments, some sort-sighted ideals that might not take off in reality. Or when I say that the ISPs might find a way to stop piracy via technology. (After all, big companies still control the master pipes). I have no problem with some of the ideals Stallman, Lessig, etc, have adopted, but I also don't want to see the whole system dismantled.

One should truly study history and trends to understand how things will eventually shake out. When I make these arguments, I want people to consider if they are arguing a point because that's what they believe will happen, or if it's something they just want or hope will happen. I was a little idealistic back in my early 20's and thought "hey, wouldn't it be great if big companies didn't sue and people would create and share for free", and somebody pointed out "that's why we have libraries". We also have PBS. But they don't replace what we have today.

I may be a bit more cynical but I also believe we need to gain a bit more wisdom when considering the future.

 

[Delta]

The US--computer programming. I don't own my work or want to. I've done creative things for gratis.

I never fought against open source. What I fight for is the right for anybody, be it sole individual or multinational corporation, the right to set the terms how they release their creations. I have nothing against open source. I dislike the people who say everybody should be forced to release it that way, we need to abolish copyright, etc.

I'm a bit critical of the OGL because I believe Wizards gave up a little too much control. I personally would not have done this with a game I created it, for various reasons.

So, kind of like I thought, you're working in an industry where your income derives partly from the existing copyright regime. I might also say "I can see why you'd think that".

You're clearly "against open source", as you've spent so much time arguing against the philosophical underpinnings of the movement. You actively "dislike the people" who say we need to abolish copyright. You don't think that "the people" should have any right in defining copyrights. You just compared open source to socialism above.

So, we disagree. There are more things than raw profit in the world, and personally I do think that the welfare of "the people", as you say, trumps the profits of corporations or individuals. Of course, that's written right in the US Constitution, that the only legitimate rationale for copyrights is if they "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" -- profits to writers are supposed to be only a limited tool to that end.

There are lots of examples around the world of regulations meant to enhance or protect certain forms of art, even at the expense of a theoretically more profitable industry. (e.g., global music, particular local brands of cheese or wine in Europe). I'm personally exceedingly glad that the people who bought D&D in 2000 decided to release the mechanics of the game, partly to increase the art form openly in future years. I do understand that you wouldn't have done the same, so I'm glad that WOTC owners took the opportunity when they had the chance.