5 ms·

This is ridiculous. You don't have the right to just take someone else's IP in order to make money. That is basically just taking advantage of someone else's

by pfisch 11y ago

This is ridiculous. You don't have the right to just take someone else's IP in order to make money. That is basically just taking advantage of someone else's marketing budget and hard work. In this world you would never even know if a sequel to a game or movie is made by the original author or a cloner. Maybe copyright periods are too long, but there is no way I should be able to release a game called Undertale tomorrow with the same characters and plot and slightly different art.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
It is ridiculous. The content companies don't have the right to pay money to people in Congress to change laws to benefit them at others' expense. And should we give I.P. producers preferential treatment in form of guaranteed profit on good works for lifetimes that the rest of us don't get for our work? And which mostly benefit those same companies above? Doesn't seem right.
- pfisch 11y ago
  Well now you are talking about lobbying which is a different subject that also isn't as black and white as you are painting it. I don't know what guaranteed profit you are talking about. Most IPs do not produce any profit even 2-5 years after they are created. Mario for example has required millions if not billions of dollars of follow on investments from Nintendo so that the ip is still valuable. Most other NES games do not continue to generate profit. "....the rest of us don't get for our work" - I don't even understand what you mean by this. Are you talking about the employment contract you strike with an employer? Because that contract varies and some employees do see profits for decades on previous works. I think you need to provide an example here.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    No, we're talking about copyright and the money it brings. That's the primary reason for its existence that I can tell. Copyrighted works are a multi-billion dollar industry. They're also extremely, one-sided laws thanks to lobbying by big companies that own most of the I.P. (esp profitable). So, when conversation comes up, it makes no sense to act like it's Joe Public vs The Little Guy given that the laws are mainly designed to benefit The Big Companies. So, the question is, should my work and company have to keep innovating to earn at or above the market rate while a select few get 100+ year monopolies on their work? I think not. Further, your employment contract reply is a strawman that doesn't reflect America's situation. People are typically hired by a company with either no contract or a contract written by the company for the company's benefit. Laws, passed again with corruption, often grant the company the I.P. if the slightest bit was done on their time. Other laws let the companies throw away employees without consequence. The result is that the labor market is rigged highly in favor of big companies and their lawyers with supply-and-demand lowering the wages of workers each year. Except big companies with a nice selection of copyrights, patents, and other legal monopolies. ;) So, it's worthwhile to ask whether we should continue giving monopolies that mainly benefit richest few and were largely created via corruption. I'm opposed to it as I think artists will create regardless. I'm for models more like Patreon or non-profits behind software.
kibwen 11y ago
> I should be able to release a game called Undertale This is actually covered by trademark law, not copyright. :P And I believe the author is actually asking you to imagine what it would be like to live in a world where characters could not be prevented from appearing in any other work of art (in any medium) by any artist. I'm not sure if it would be a net good or bad, but it would definitely be fascinating. As a pure thought experiment I've always imagined that were I to produce some popular work of fiction that I'd release all rights to all characters to the public domain and see what came of it, as the seed for a kind of ultimate anarchic remix culture. Who's to say what's canon when nobody owns the universe?
aiiane 11y ago
You are confusing copyright and trademark. Trademark is what says you can't release a game called the same thing as someone else's game, in the same way that a random publisher can't call themselves "Tor" and hope no one notices. Copyright is what says you can't publish the same book that Tor does under a different name.
- pfisch 11y ago
  Either way you are essentially just taking advantage of the marketing budget and production of someone else.
  - TheDong 11y ago
    And The Martian took advantage of NASA's budget and Star War's budget by also being about space. And OS X took advantage of Microsoft's marketing budget for the idea of Laptops / computers. Who cares if you're gaining recognition by making a derivative of something that already exists? When some parent product marketed something, it was for its own benefit. If I also benefit, that doesn't mean I'm stealing their marketing budget out from under them, it means I'm taking advantage of what people already are familiar with. I do think your statement that someone making a derivative work is taking advantage of the original's marketing budget, recognition, etc.... I just don't see why that matters. Hell, the derivative work often-as-not can act as further marketing for the original.
eevee 11y ago
You seem to be assuming that derivative work doesn't require hard work of its own. I tried to make the point that this game is itself a derivative of other things, without which it couldn't exist. Even if you did do that: why would anyone buy it in lieu of the original?
- pfisch 11y ago
  "Even if you did do that: why would anyone buy it in lieu of the original?" Because of market confusion. I would generate sales from people who didn't realize they were not buying the original. This happens right now but it would be much worse if we removed all the controls. "You seem to be assuming that derivative work doesn't require hard work of its own. I tried to make the point that this game is itself a derivative of other things, without which it couldn't exist." I didn't say that at all. Honestly that seems irrelevant. It also requires hard work to plan and successfully rob a bank.
  - TheDong 11y ago
    Trademark covers something that is "likely to cause confusion". Eevee is not arguing for removing all the controls; there's not a word about removing trademark law
  - nightpool 11y ago
    Please don't equivocate between trademark and copyright law—it muddles the waters and degrades the discussion. The original article and its points were all about copyright law. Releasing a game called "undertale" is a trademark law question.
- swhipple 11y ago
  > I tried to make the point that this game is itself a derivative of other things, without which it couldn't exist. Being a derivative in the sense of borrowing game mechanics [1] or drawing influence [2] isn't nearly the same as copying (or deriving from) the content. Many artists put hard work into developing their content, and it cannot be right to say "Hmm, that's popular, I should use it to market my product" without getting proper licensing. Even if it happens to be a corporation in ownership of the content. I do agree that there might be some benefits to copyright reform, especially relating to culture and literary value. The latter part of your article hints at some interesting alternatives, but I not sure I believe them to be 'absolutely' better. [1] http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html [2] Copyright is only applicable to fixed expression.
AgentME 11y ago
Building on pre-existing stories has been the norm for a very long time! New media works based on Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Cthulhu, and many classic myths of cultures are very common and popular. The present state of affairs where no one can properly create media making use of mythologies authored only in the last century seems unusual in retrospect. Great relevant post that I'm sorta parroting: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/06/they-took-our-myths.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/06/they-too...
scotty79 11y ago
> That is basically just taking advantage of someone else's marketing budget Maybe risk of having your marketing budget shamelessly exploited would make you put less money into it. Which would be great because marketing is ever growing tax on creativity.

by pfisch 11y ago

nickpsecurity 11y ago

It is ridiculous. The content companies don't have the right to pay money to people in Congress to change laws to benefit them at others' expense. And should we give I.P. producers preferential treatment in form of guaranteed profit on good works for lifetimes that the rest of us don't get for our work? And which mostly benefit those same companies above? Doesn't seem right.

pfisch 11y ago
Well now you are talking about lobbying which is a different subject that also isn't as black and white as you are painting it. I don't know what guaranteed profit you are talking about. Most IPs do not produce any profit even 2-5 years after they are created. Mario for example has required millions if not billions of dollars of follow on investments from Nintendo so that the ip is still valuable. Most other NES games do not continue to generate profit. "....the rest of us don't get for our work" - I don't even understand what you mean by this. Are you talking about the employment contract you strike with an employer? Because that contract varies and some employees do see profits for decades on previous works. I think you need to provide an example here.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  No, we're talking about copyright and the money it brings. That's the primary reason for its existence that I can tell. Copyrighted works are a multi-billion dollar industry. They're also extremely, one-sided laws thanks to lobbying by big companies that own most of the I.P. (esp profitable). So, when conversation comes up, it makes no sense to act like it's Joe Public vs The Little Guy given that the laws are mainly designed to benefit The Big Companies. So, the question is, should my work and company have to keep innovating to earn at or above the market rate while a select few get 100+ year monopolies on their work? I think not. Further, your employment contract reply is a strawman that doesn't reflect America's situation. People are typically hired by a company with either no contract or a contract written by the company for the company's benefit. Laws, passed again with corruption, often grant the company the I.P. if the slightest bit was done on their time. Other laws let the companies throw away employees without consequence. The result is that the labor market is rigged highly in favor of big companies and their lawyers with supply-and-demand lowering the wages of workers each year. Except big companies with a nice selection of copyrights, patents, and other legal monopolies. ;) So, it's worthwhile to ask whether we should continue giving monopolies that mainly benefit richest few and were largely created via corruption. I'm opposed to it as I think artists will create regardless. I'm for models more like Patreon or non-profits behind software.

kibwen 11y ago

> I should be able to release a game called Undertale This is actually covered by trademark law, not copyright. :P And I believe the author is actually asking you to imagine what it would be like to live in a world where characters could not be prevented from appearing in any other work of art (in any medium) by any artist. I'm not sure if it would be a net good or bad, but it would definitely be fascinating. As a pure thought experiment I've always imagined that were I to produce some popular work of fiction that I'd release all rights to all characters to the public domain and see what came of it, as the seed for a kind of ultimate anarchic remix culture. Who's to say what's canon when nobody owns the universe?

aiiane 11y ago

You are confusing copyright and trademark. Trademark is what says you can't release a game called the same thing as someone else's game, in the same way that a random publisher can't call themselves "Tor" and hope no one notices. Copyright is what says you can't publish the same book that Tor does under a different name.

pfisch 11y ago
Either way you are essentially just taking advantage of the marketing budget and production of someone else.
- TheDong 11y ago
  And The Martian took advantage of NASA's budget and Star War's budget by also being about space. And OS X took advantage of Microsoft's marketing budget for the idea of Laptops / computers. Who cares if you're gaining recognition by making a derivative of something that already exists? When some parent product marketed something, it was for its own benefit. If I also benefit, that doesn't mean I'm stealing their marketing budget out from under them, it means I'm taking advantage of what people already are familiar with. I do think your statement that someone making a derivative work is taking advantage of the original's marketing budget, recognition, etc.... I just don't see why that matters. Hell, the derivative work often-as-not can act as further marketing for the original.

eevee 11y ago

You seem to be assuming that derivative work doesn't require hard work of its own. I tried to make the point that this game is itself a derivative of other things, without which it couldn't exist. Even if you did do that: why would anyone buy it in lieu of the original?

pfisch 11y ago
"Even if you did do that: why would anyone buy it in lieu of the original?" Because of market confusion. I would generate sales from people who didn't realize they were not buying the original. This happens right now but it would be much worse if we removed all the controls. "You seem to be assuming that derivative work doesn't require hard work of its own. I tried to make the point that this game is itself a derivative of other things, without which it couldn't exist." I didn't say that at all. Honestly that seems irrelevant. It also requires hard work to plan and successfully rob a bank.
- TheDong 11y ago
  Trademark covers something that is "likely to cause confusion". Eevee is not arguing for removing all the controls; there's not a word about removing trademark law
- nightpool 11y ago
  Please don't equivocate between trademark and copyright law—it muddles the waters and degrades the discussion. The original article and its points were all about copyright law. Releasing a game called "undertale" is a trademark law question.
swhipple 11y ago
> I tried to make the point that this game is itself a derivative of other things, without which it couldn't exist. Being a derivative in the sense of borrowing game mechanics [1] or drawing influence [2] isn't nearly the same as copying (or deriving from) the content. Many artists put hard work into developing their content, and it cannot be right to say "Hmm, that's popular, I should use it to market my product" without getting proper licensing. Even if it happens to be a corporation in ownership of the content. I do agree that there might be some benefits to copyright reform, especially relating to culture and literary value. The latter part of your article hints at some interesting alternatives, but I not sure I believe them to be 'absolutely' better. [1] http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html [2] Copyright is only applicable to fixed expression.

AgentME 11y ago

Building on pre-existing stories has been the norm for a very long time! New media works based on Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Cthulhu, and many classic myths of cultures are very common and popular. The present state of affairs where no one can properly create media making use of mythologies authored only in the last century seems unusual in retrospect. Great relevant post that I'm sorta parroting: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/06/they-took-our-myths.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/06/they-too...

scotty79 11y ago

> That is basically just taking advantage of someone else's marketing budget Maybe risk of having your marketing budget shamelessly exploited would make you put less money into it. Which would be great because marketing is ever growing tax on creativity.