Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 4042395" data-attributes="member: 2732">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  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> .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 (<a href="http://www.povonline.com/cols/COL209.htm" target="_blank">1</a> ,<a href="http://www.povonline.com/cols/COL210.htm" target="_blank">2</a> ,<a href="http://www.povonline.com/cols/COL224.htm" target="_blank">3</a> ) 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 "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights" target="_blank">Moral Rights</a> " 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemisms" target="_blank">Euphemisms</a>  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.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition" target="_blank">Perfect Competition</a> 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.</blockquote>

Verification