Pirating RPGs. (And were not talking "arggg" pirate stuff here.)

[The Sigil]

Yeah, but you switched the "little guy" role midway through your argument. In the first half the little guy was the author; in the second half he was the reader. Which (IMHO) means that it hasn't been turned on its head in quite the way you imply.

Not really. In the second half, the "little guy" is the "guy sharing on the internet" - that's publishing a work (small-scale).

I will ignore your use of the loaded term "shark" to refer to a publisher of a PDF for a D&D game (because let's not forget -- that's what this thread is about), and simply ask this:

Why should only "the little guy" benefit from copyright law? Why shouldn't the big guy also benefit?

Sorry, I didn't mean it to be loaded... perhaps I should say, "the big fish and the little fish." I just thought of "Shark" when I thought of "animal that eats fish" (I would have used "whale" but they eat plankton).

And I'm not saying the big guy shouldn't also benefit. I'm simply saying that the original purpose of copyright law was to protect little from big. Now, by and large, it's used to protect big from little. That's not inherently bad... a "fair" law protects everyone equally... I'm just saying it's funny how times change and now the "big guys" are asking for protection, when before they were the problem (and vice versa).

--The Sigil

 

[Spell]

When you start appealing to some mythical, Utopian, anti-cynical moral high ground, that's a clue that you've lost the argument badly.

ehm... maybe you're reading another guy's post. i'm just saying what it's like to me. i ain't appealing to anybody.
maybe the world outside is really bad and dangerous and bleak and evil.
my experence is that it's not that bad, and i like it. i'm not so naive to assume that everybody is a friend in disguise, but i did find out that most people doesn't initially give a damn about you. you start a fight, they will react badly. you might win the fight, but i wonder how much that is worth...
no utopian land here, just my experience. if i am deluded, man, i'd rather stay deluded and keep living (fairly) happy in this world than being awoken and like in crappy-land.
please, don't wake me up! !)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Whoa.... so you mean that copyright is now reducing creativity?

I'm surprised you haven't heard that one before. Copyright *does* reduce creativity. Turn on the radio, bub. How many Drowning Pool songs sound that different to you?

The internet is letting anyone be creative and diseminate their ideas and make money from those ideas. Every one that is realising their own work (music/art/rpging) on the net is experience the full benefit of copyright in that have a guarantee that those "suits" can't steal their ideas without running the risk of legal repercusions. The low cost of entry into various markets previously controled by "suits" makes the fact that copyright exists that much more beneficial to "non-suits."

True. But then those same suits are the ones who determine what is released, not the artists. The suits are the fuzzy-hatted pimps, arraging for the creators to whore themselves out to a ravenous public. The whores sell themselves, but the pimps determine what whores sell.

I simply don't understand this. Copyright as written is not LIMITING creativity it is INCREASING creativity. You can be as creative as you want. Just come up with your own idea and not someone elses. Regardless of wether or not that someone else is Disney or your neighborhood garage band.

"Good artists borrow, great artists steal", if that's the right phrase...

If the only thing the suits release to the public is, say, N*Sync, and the suits controll the airwaves, exactly how much is your neighborhood garage band's daring reinterpretation of guitarplaying worth?

And when you can't get on a local radio station because "that's not what we play," how much incentive is there to create something new?

 

[nothing to see here]

What I love about these threads is how they bring the moral relativists and nihilists out of the woodwork.

"Theft is only considered wrong because society has a law against it!"
"Piracy is perfectly moral -- it's copyrighting things that is immoral!"
"Creating things for profit is immoral!"
"All constructs of what is moral/immoral are meaningless!"

And so on, and so forth.

I feel like I am back in college in a freshman philosophy class where none of the students has read the assignment and all are just spewing forth their alcohol and marijuana fueled opinions.

During my freshman year in college the same charge could have levelled against the faculty. Heck, I just rolled with it then, like I roll with it now. You can't have a good dialectic without some serious big time self-indulgance. And besides every now and then, you get a gem among the rough.

 

[The Shaman]

But then those same suits are the ones who determine what is released, not the artists. The suits are the fuzzy-hatted pimps, arraging for the creators to whore themselves out to a ravenous public. The whores sell themselves, but the pimps determine what whores sell....And when you can't get on a local radio station because "that's not what we play," how much incentive is there to create something new?

Oh please.

Creative people, truly creative people, don't need a monetary incentive to be creative. And with the means to self-publish or distribute music (for a fee or not) available today, then this screed is less true than ever.

Blaming the suits is a lame cop-out.

 

[Spell]

IMHO, the biggest problem with patronage is that it creates art for the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful.

maybe you're right. still, i am neither rich nor powerful, and i like milo's venus a lot!

 

[jgbrowning]

I'm surprised you haven't heard that one before. Copyright *does* reduce creativity. Turn on the radio, bub. How many Drowning Pool songs sound that different to you?

Which of the 2,500 web streams should I tune into to hear Drowning Pool?

I've never heard Drowing Pool. Why? Because I listen to radio on the internet to hear what I want to hear. Or I guess I could listen to one of the what, 500 channels on satilite radio. Sorry, Copyright isn't limiting creativity. It's making creativity econically viable in ways it had never been before because of the development of new media outlets (the internet).

True. But then those same suits are the ones who determine what is released, not the artists. The suits are the fuzzy-hatted pimps, arraging for the creators to whore themselves out to a ravenous public. The whores sell themselves, but the pimps determine what whores sell.

First, which one am I, a pimp or a whore? You may want to watch your tone a bit because you are talking to a group that has some pimps and whores in it and I'm not very fond of personal attacks.

Second, if an artist wants to "make it big" wowwee they have to have money and connections. I hate to break it to you but that's the way it's always been, even before copyright. In fact, there are more wealthy artists now than before copyright.

"Good artists borrow, great artists steal", if that's the right phrase...

If the only thing the suits release to the public is, say, N*Sync, and the suits controll the airwaves, exactly how much is your neighborhood garage band's daring reinterpretation of guitarplaying worth?

So your argument is that because the people who own the radio stations get to decide what they play based upon what sell the best is the reason why copyright is bad?

Well, start up an internet web-radio, pay your fees and make a living off playing music that you want to hear on your radio.

I've started my own business based on the web and doing what I like, you can too. Why? Because of Copyright I have legal recourse to protect myself and secure my welfare. Without copyright I would have no legal recourse.

And when you can't get on a local radio station because "that's not what we play," how much incentive is there to create something new?

Your arguement has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with corporistic capitalism. Copyright is what gives a creative the ability to profit from their work. The fact that its hard to do doesn't mean that copyright's the problem. The fact that Billy Holliday will never make as much money as Drowning Pool (I'm assuming they're popular) doesn't mean that copyright's to blame.

If there wasn't copyright those "suits" could "steal" the music you like and not pay the artists you like one single penny.

joe b.

 

[Wormwood]

Heck, I just rolled with it then, like I roll with it now. You can't have a good dialectic without some serious big time self-indulgance. And besides every now and then, you get a gem among the rough.

If you find said gem, please let me know.

After 330+ posts, I'm giving up.

 

[Spell]

Personally, I'm not nessecarily against copyright, because I certainly believe some form of copyright could certainly help foster this natural tendancy of humanity. But to posit it as an essential component of generating creative works is wrong. It isn't. It's a side-product of the fact that we as human beings produce art.

i second that emotion.

 

[jgbrowning]

Oh please.

Creative people, truly creative people, don't need a monetary incentive to be creative. And with the means to self-publish or distribute music (for a fee or not) available today, then this screed is less true than ever.

Blaming the suits is a lame cop-out.

So am I a truly creative person? I need a monetary incentive to be creative. I have other things I need to do with my time If I can't make money being creative. I need to eat and if being creative doesn't let me do that, I have to do something else.

joe b.