Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Coreyartus" data-source="post: 7689860" data-attributes="member: 5399">A book using using the efforts of others is a bit different than candy.&nbsp; A character isn't a recipe.&nbsp; The original developers of those characters are using them to make a living.&nbsp; You can't make money off of them without their permission, because that's the way the developer survives.&nbsp; It's not candy.&nbsp; And by the way, you can't copyright recipes.&nbsp; So no one cares if you actually do make that candy and sell it.I like to think that supporting our artists and creative thinkers IS helping society.You're right.&nbsp; But one does retain the capacity to make money off of Intellectual Property and control what can be expressed with the material they've created.&nbsp; They're not ideas.&nbsp; They're constructs used to express ideas.&nbsp; Don't delude yourself into confusing the two.&nbsp; There are indeed lots of legal exceptions to copyright--and no one is arguing those are bad.&nbsp; But make sure you're using those constructs in a way that's legal.&nbsp; Otherwise you're stealing.&nbsp;Fans are the only way an IP can live on in perpetuity?&nbsp; That without them stealing someone else's work for their own use the IP may dwindle into nothingness?&nbsp; That somehow they're entitled to take other people's hard work for their own because, heroically, they're the only ones who can do it justice?How narcissistic is that?!?Pleaze, I teach theatre.&nbsp; I've designed more Shakespeare plays than most people have ever heard of.&nbsp; Everyone knows Shakespeare blatantly ripped off a lot of sources and used them as his own.&nbsp; But his was a different world and a different time. Ethics and morality were fundamentally different and shaped by the civilization of the time.&nbsp; If you're actually advocating we adopt copyright laws from a time that existed before the printing press was in wide-spread usage, I think you're going to have a lot of upset people.&nbsp; He stole.&nbsp; That's not contested.&nbsp; But that doesn't make it right for today's world.&nbsp; And he was compensated using the methodology of his time--as a member of his company.&nbsp; And you'll note that playwrights were often compensated through the printing of their plays and the traditional single 4th performance that was customary for generations--an accepted practice that didn't exist when Shakespeare was actually alive.&nbsp; Fair compensation has evolved through the ages, and Dion Boucicault ( a playwright) was actually fundamental in the development of US copyright law.&nbsp; Hopefully, we've changed what we perceive as ethical and fair a bit since Shakespeare's time.&nbsp; Because I really don't think any of us want to hold up other &quot;ethical&quot; practices of his time (like slavery and burning at the stake) as exemplary practices to continue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Coreyartus, post: 7689860, member: 5399"] A book using using the efforts of others is a bit different than candy. A character isn't a recipe. The original developers of those characters are using them to make a living. You can't make money off of them without their permission, because that's the way the developer survives. It's not candy. And by the way, you can't copyright recipes. So no one cares if you actually do make that candy and sell it. I like to think that supporting our artists and creative thinkers IS helping society. You're right. But one does retain the capacity to make money off of Intellectual Property and control what can be expressed with the material they've created. They're not ideas. They're constructs used to express ideas. Don't delude yourself into confusing the two. There are indeed lots of legal exceptions to copyright--and no one is arguing those are bad. But make sure you're using those constructs in a way that's legal. Otherwise you're stealing. Fans are the only way an IP can live on in perpetuity? That without them stealing someone else's work for their own use the IP may dwindle into nothingness? That somehow they're entitled to take other people's hard work for their own because, heroically, they're the only ones who can do it justice? How narcissistic is that?!? Pleaze, I teach theatre. I've designed more Shakespeare plays than most people have ever heard of. Everyone knows Shakespeare blatantly ripped off a lot of sources and used them as his own. But his was a different world and a different time. Ethics and morality were fundamentally different and shaped by the civilization of the time. If you're actually advocating we adopt copyright laws from a time that existed before the printing press was in wide-spread usage, I think you're going to have a lot of upset people. He stole. That's not contested. But that doesn't make it right for today's world. And [I]he[/I] was compensated using the methodology of his time--as a member of his company. And you'll note that playwrights were often compensated through the printing of their plays and the traditional single 4th performance that was customary for generations--an accepted practice that didn't exist when Shakespeare was actually alive. Fair compensation has evolved through the ages, and Dion Boucicault ( a playwright) was actually fundamental in the development of US copyright law. Hopefully, we've changed what we perceive as ethical and fair a bit since Shakespeare's time. Because I really don't think any of us want to hold up other "ethical" practices of his time (like slavery and burning at the stake) as exemplary practices to continue. [/QUOTE]

Verification