3 ms·

> it’s possible you cannot use anything that came out throughout your entire life. Nothing you grew up with, nothing that inspired you, nothing that speaks to t

by dahart 4y ago

> it’s possible you cannot use anything that came out throughout your entire life. Nothing you grew up with, nothing that inspired you, nothing that speaks to the life you live. What do you mean by “use”? You can’t sell someone else’s creation just because you like it, that’s true. You can’t copy it and send it to others or post it online. But why should you be able to do those things? Why are you implying that legal restrictions on stealing them for your own profit, or redistributing things for free alike, is akin to not being able to enjoy culture? You are allowed to view/watch/listen/consume legally obtained copies, and be inspired by them. You & teachers/schools are allowed to made educational copies for school. You are allowed to pay homage to things you grew up with, artistically, and share snippets and some kinds of remix under Fair Use. You can copy styles legally without copying content, if you want. You are allowed to have and hold any culture you want. You are allowed to create new work and give it to anyone you want. This seems like FUD. Copyrights have been longer than the average lifespan for more than 100 years and we still have plenty of culture - spread of culture has even been accelerating in many ways. Strong arguments do exist for reducing and/or weakening copyrights, but pretending that copyrights prevent the spread of arts and culture isn’t accurate. (And might be willfully blind to the intended and actual ways that copyrights successfully promote cultural development and incentivize new creative works.)

joshspankit 4y ago
Talk to the people who have created games based on existing characters: they made their own original work because they loved it, put in hundreds of hours, released it for free, and had their work taken off the internet with a cease and desist. We see examples like that all the time. When was the last time someone was able to make their own popular movie from existing characters without facing some type of legal action? And I’m not talking about the “30% different loophole” where creators have to figure out the balance between recognizable and alienating.
- dahart 4y ago
  Can you share some specific examples? Using someone else’s existing characters is probably stealing/infringing. That is not 100% original work. I haven’t heard about this being a big problem, most people know you can’t borrow characters from big studio productions without facing legal action, so they don’t attempt it. Edit to mention up higher that when using someone else’s characters is trademark infringement, that is completely different and doesn’t support your arguments about copyright at all.
  - thekombustor 4y ago
    Nintendo is infamous for this, not only games specifically but mostly any "works" that relate to their content at all, including YouTube videos and also mods to long extinct games.
    - dahart 4y ago
      Correct. The cases you’re citing are people who are taking Nintendo’s work and redistributing it. YouTube channels have been challenged when people include music from their games, which is copyright infringement. Mods to long extinct games are still distributions of Nintendo’s work, they are not original work. These are all examples of trying to use Nintendo’s IP and redistribute it without Nintendo’s permission. As much as we might not like it, and whether or not Nintendo is actively marketing it, what’s missing here is a valid argument for why people should be able to borrow Nintendo’s work. BTW your example may be wading in to Trademark territory, which is not the same thing a copyright and doesn’t apply to this discussion.
      - elsjaako 4y ago
        Nintendo's work isn't a physical, limited good in their possession. It's not like a car or a handbag. This type of property is protected by law. This isnt the natural state of things, once upon a time you could just retell a story you heard. We as a society have decided to give Nintendo a temporary monopoly. Why do we do this? Different people give different arguments, but for me the reason is that I like Nintendo games, and I want Nintento to keep making them, and they're more likely to make it if we give them an additional edge to make money making games. With that perspective, I would argue that you should be able to use their work, as long as it isn't likely to stop them from producing more content. Mods to long extinct games seem like a clear example where this is the case. I'm not saying this is how the law is, I'm saying I think the law as it stands restricts people way to much for the purposes it serves to the people.
        dahart 4y ago
        Copyright law today isn’t about physical goods, it’s now about giving the author of a work the right to control who can copy it. We as a society have decided to give all authors of all works a temporary monopoly, and the reasons for it are well documented. I’m not sure I understand why wishing Nintendo to continue doing business supports the idea that you should be able to remix their work, which implicitly means you want people to be able to profit from their designs without necessarily adding value. There’s nothing at all stopping people from making new games, why do they want to mod Nintendo’s games without licensing them? Why should that be legal? And if it is legal, how do you continue to protect Nintendo when some of the “mods” will be people making straight copies, changing something trivial like the background color on the box, and selling it for full price while giving Nintendo none of the money? If you respond with, well put a standard for how much it must be changed in place, then consider why your standard should be any different than Fair Use.

by dahart 4y ago

joshspankit 4y ago

Talk to the people who have created games based on existing characters: they made their own original work because they loved it, put in hundreds of hours, released it for free, and had their work taken off the internet with a cease and desist. We see examples like that all the time. When was the last time someone was able to make their own popular movie from existing characters without facing some type of legal action? And I’m not talking about the “30% different loophole” where creators have to figure out the balance between recognizable and alienating.

dahart 4y ago
Can you share some specific examples? Using someone else’s existing characters is probably stealing/infringing. That is not 100% original work. I haven’t heard about this being a big problem, most people know you can’t borrow characters from big studio productions without facing legal action, so they don’t attempt it. Edit to mention up higher that when using someone else’s characters is trademark infringement, that is completely different and doesn’t support your arguments about copyright at all.
- thekombustor 4y ago
  Nintendo is infamous for this, not only games specifically but mostly any "works" that relate to their content at all, including YouTube videos and also mods to long extinct games.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Correct. The cases you’re citing are people who are taking Nintendo’s work and redistributing it. YouTube channels have been challenged when people include music from their games, which is copyright infringement. Mods to long extinct games are still distributions of Nintendo’s work, they are not original work. These are all examples of trying to use Nintendo’s IP and redistribute it without Nintendo’s permission. As much as we might not like it, and whether or not Nintendo is actively marketing it, what’s missing here is a valid argument for why people should be able to borrow Nintendo’s work. BTW your example may be wading in to Trademark territory, which is not the same thing a copyright and doesn’t apply to this discussion.
    - elsjaako 4y ago
      Nintendo's work isn't a physical, limited good in their possession. It's not like a car or a handbag. This type of property is protected by law. This isnt the natural state of things, once upon a time you could just retell a story you heard. We as a society have decided to give Nintendo a temporary monopoly. Why do we do this? Different people give different arguments, but for me the reason is that I like Nintendo games, and I want Nintento to keep making them, and they're more likely to make it if we give them an additional edge to make money making games. With that perspective, I would argue that you should be able to use their work, as long as it isn't likely to stop them from producing more content. Mods to long extinct games seem like a clear example where this is the case. I'm not saying this is how the law is, I'm saying I think the law as it stands restricts people way to much for the purposes it serves to the people.
      - dahart 4y ago
        Copyright law today isn’t about physical goods, it’s now about giving the author of a work the right to control who can copy it. We as a society have decided to give all authors of all works a temporary monopoly, and the reasons for it are well documented. I’m not sure I understand why wishing Nintendo to continue doing business supports the idea that you should be able to remix their work, which implicitly means you want people to be able to profit from their designs without necessarily adding value. There’s nothing at all stopping people from making new games, why do they want to mod Nintendo’s games without licensing them? Why should that be legal? And if it is legal, how do you continue to protect Nintendo when some of the “mods” will be people making straight copies, changing something trivial like the background color on the box, and selling it for full price while giving Nintendo none of the money? If you respond with, well put a standard for how much it must be changed in place, then consider why your standard should be any different than Fair Use.