IP/Copyright Law Discussion: Reform? Abolish? Clarify?

[Quillion]

So over on this thread not too long ago as of this writing, there was a discussion on IP law and the harm it has done. It's understandable, considering Nintendo is notorious for abusing copyright law in recent years, and many other companies such as Toei, Disney, and most major music publishers can be anywhere from almost as bad to worse.

Because of this, there is a number of people who want IP Law to be abolished entirely. These people believe that at best, copyright law served as a way to encourage originality at the time, but with the advent of better communication technology and encouragement of sharing (especially with the internet), copyright law is working against its original purpose.

However, there are others who want simple reform, given that the abolishing of copyright law could indeed lead to much less originality in favor of simply using popular IPs like Mario, Dragon Ball, Marvel, and Mickey Mouse wherever possible. It could certainly harm creators who genuinely want to be original since audiences will automatically go for the more well-known universes at this point.

There's even a third option: simply clarify what "Fair Use" means. Fair Use (especially the "transformative" part of the definition) tends to be so vague that it's very hard to enforce, leading to many companies easily claiming that something isn't Fair Use since it's not transformative enough. Perhaps something as simple as "not meant for profit" could be a nice definition.

There are certainly a lot of sides to this argument, but most seem to agree that current IP law doesn't work in the age of the internet. What would you think?

 

[Champion of Hyrule]

I think a possible solution for the time being would be to reduce the length of copyright to maybe 30 or 40 years although that’s far from perfect, it could very easily be complicated to determine what is and isn’t in public domain though and I could very easily see corporations taking advantage of that.

I do really like the idea of your third option as a start though, in an age where fan created works are a great way for people to start being creative, encouraging them in that way and allowing IP’s to be used by basically anyone if it’s not making a profit would be great. Again it could potentially be a bit messy but it’s a good start

 

[Sucumbio]

Before America declared independence Great Britain saw the passage by Parliament of the Statute of Anne which was necessary at the time because printing became commonplace as a way to exchange information but the print shops were held in the grip of a monopoly of printers who not only routinely screwed their authors out of money but retained the right to censor anything they printed. It was a necessity in other words ensuring not only freedom of expression but to ensure writers were properly compensated. The term was 14 years and renewable again after that time.

Fast forward to today and those terms are much longer. Mickey Mouse (specifically his original appearance) will be public domain in 2024. Now because Trademark law is different and is in play you still can't just use it. You can create a work using the original design (he looks more rat like that he does today) but you can't make the work in such a way that reasonable people would mistake it for a Disney product. Doing so would result in litigation. So it's gotta be obviously not Disney.

So basically the original intent of copyright law was to protect authors, and then in our own Constitution that and also to incentivize creativity. While I think copyright is important to ensure original works stay true to their source material (as in when copied) I do agree that the system makes for greedy creators. The best solution is to either make all your works public domain from the start, or if you feel you must have exclusive recognition, let the time frame shrink back down to 24 years or so with an option to renew during the creator's lifetime. Inheritors should be able to continue to make money from investments made of course but only by virtue of the resultant establishments that came from the original.

So for example Harry Potter has branched into games, movies, merchandise etc. These things can and will generate revenue for decades to come, long after JKR has passed away. So whomever should be her benefactors should she so choose, should inherit the business deals that earn residuals for game sales, merch sales, etc. What shouldn't happen is there being no one else allowed to pick up the reigns and write a new Harry Potter novel.

There is also the need for authors and artists to ensure their creations aren't reproduced in a way that goes against their wishes. So at least while still alive this should be honored by copyright renewals. Once they're gone tho... Well they're dead so they aren't going to feel anything about what someone is doing with their precious creations.

 

[Quillion]

Sucumbio : A creator's lifetime renewal sounds so much better than the awful creator's lifetime+so many years we have now.

Though as you said, trademark law is going to be an annoying wrinkle if companies like Disney and Nintendo abuse it to effectively maintain copyright over an original design.

 

[Sucumbio]

Though as you said, trademark law is going to be an annoying wrinkle if companies like Disney and Nintendo abuse it to effectively maintain copyright over an original design.

It may... I don't know. Trademark infringement is when what you're presenting could be reasonably assumed as a product of the Trademark holder. Doing that is sneaky anyway so I'd just not do it.

I will say that CCL is a step in the right direction. As is the shift in focus of monetizing the interest in something rather than the thing itself.

 

[Quillion]

It may... I don't know. Trademark infringement is when what you're presenting could be reasonably assumed as a product of the Trademark holder. Doing that is sneaky anyway so I'd just not do it.

I will say that CCL is a step in the right direction. As is the shift in focus of monetizing the interest in something rather than the thing itself.

So at least fan remakes could still be taken down but everything else considered "transformative" is still fair use. Seems good enough.

What does CCL stand for btw?

 

[fogbadge]

Anyone know how long copyright lasts in the uk?

 

[Quillion]

Anyone know how long copyright lasts in the uk?

Looks like it's life+70.

So The Hobbit for example will be public domain in the UK in 2043.

 

[Sucumbio]

So at least fan remakes could still be taken down but everything else considered "transformative" is still fair use. Seems good enough.

What does CCL stand for btw?

Homepage - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

 

[fogbadge]

Looks like it's life+70.

So The Hobbit for example will be public domain in the UK in 2043.

oh good no one’s nicking my stuff

not that theyd want to

 

[Sucumbio]

So in the OP's other thread Chuderz essentially offered the counter to keeping copyright law if I read correctly. I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on this matter since so far we all seem to consent to the opinion that copyright is a good thing if just a bit overboard in term.

 

[KneeOfJustice99]

I'm going to preface this by stating very clearly, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not involved in the law or any related fields, and if you have any questions or queries regarding the actual legislation in place, I'd suggest you should probably contact a professional. (I'm covering my ass here shh)

A common comparison is to patent law, so let me suggest this to sort of set the scene. Say that, in my garage, I happen to find a cure for the common cold. If I apply for a patent, the patent lasts for 20 years after creation. What this means in practice is that I (or my company) am the only ones who can sell this specific cure to the general population. I can continue to sell it afterward, but so can everyone else. There's no confusion if the company changes hands, or even if I sell the company to another person or group. This 20 year period is pretty much universal the world over.

If I make a character, let's say his name is Cold-Curer, and apply for copyright protection (and succeed), in the United States, I can be the sole distributor of Cold-Curer merchandise for my entire life plus 70 years. That's the same here in the UK, but if I'm in Canada it's my life plus 50 years. If I'm in Mexico, it's my life plus 100 years. For context, if I make Cold-Curer today, right now, I (and my estate) are the sole benefactors of the IP for an indetermate time, but let's say that my life expectancy is average for the UK (around 81 years), so that means Cold-Curer enters the public domain in the year 2155.

2155.

Let's put that in context: 2155 is 133 years away. Let's turn back the clock to 133 years ago, the year 1889. Coca-Cola had just been invented. The automobile had existed for three years, and the plane wouldn't exist for 17 years. The Eiffel Tower is erected. The first films in the United States are shot. Books such as Dracula and The Picture of Dorian Gray haven't even been written yet. What I'm trying to say is that this is a long time ago, especially in the context of media.

Both patents and copyrights are intended to serve the same purpose - to ensure that the creator of a work of some description has the opportunity to essentially be paid for their work, and this is why I think the elimination of IP law would be a fundamental loss, because it'd be almost impossible to really make money from your own work unless you were already a large company with money that you could pour into this new IP. Going back to Cold-Curer, what's going to make more money - my own low-budget college short film production, or a multi-million Hollywood movie? Is it fair that I'd be essentially shafted by them? Well... no.

Now, I'm not here to say that copyright law should be shortened to only 20 years after publication, because that would really damage something that's come about in recent years - the archetypical "one-hit wonder" as it were. I point to songs like It's Raining Men by the Weather Girls and Cotton Eyed Joe by Rednex as examples of this - if copyright law were suddenly shortened to 20 years, they wouldn't be able to really make all that much from their own products anymore, so I think it should be longer.

As such: I'm going to say 50 years after publication. Few reasons for this: firstly, it allows nostalgia cycles to take place. 80s stuff would be in the public domain by the 2030s - but most of the early discography of the Beatles would be in the public domain by now. Furthermore, it essentially eliminates the problem of orphaned works (situations where the author is unknown or their date of death is unclear.) However, I'm going to suggest something: I think there should be a sort of international standard for this, and the definition of Fair Use really needs retooling. Let me explain:

Pictured here is a meme. Common method of internet expression, right? Well... I've just committed a crime, on SmashBoards dot com. See, this is a flagrant violation of copyright law! So, let's say that I'm going to court and somehow manage to afford a lawyer of my own to argue the case of fair use... except, well, it's not. This isn't a direct piece of criticism or review of the original product (Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater.) So no, this is a crime. It's clearly taking profits away from small international media company Konami, and I should at the very least pay a fine for this. In fact, here in the UK, it's quite reasonable for the police to sieze all of my electronic equipment in response to my clear action of violating the law!

Websites like YouTube have essentially been defined in the modern age by how they have to work around copyright law, despite the very nature of the internet promoting sharing of content. In fact, by definition, it can be argued that this very website, by nature of existing, is criminal. Look to either side of the text you're reading - unlicensed images the website doesn't own being used illegally. Maybe the term "SmashBoards" isn't a crime out of context, but perhaps the Project M sections are: unlicensed products that steal the IP of others without permission. This isn't me throwing shade, but proving a point:

Copyright law is woefully unequipped for modern media.

I think a retooling of copyright law as a whole would be beneficial, especially in the throes of the internet age. I said this from the beginning, I'm not a lawyer. The suggestions and points I've offered here may, or may not, work. Hell, some of them might end up doing more harm than good! But here's my own final suggestions:

- Copyright law should be unified the world over. We're already partway there with the Berne Convention, that "the duration of the term for copyright protection is the life of the author plus at least 50 years after their death." Having it unified the world over would make things easier considering the nature of the Internet, though: I mentioned earlier that North America alone brings major confusion here, given that Canada gives you protection 50 years after death, the US gives you protection 70 years after death, and Mexico gives protection 100 years after death.

- I think the public domain threshold should be a set period, as opposed to "after death." The argument of "this needs to protect the creator" is something I can understand, but copyright law is supposed to promote creativity: and that should include the original creator.

- Likewise, I think that it should be shortened to 50 years after "creation" (or perhaps publication.) It'd allow for nostalgia cycles to take place, and yet would mean that the public domain is more relevant to modern concepts and interests. There's only so many situations you can write Sherlock Holmes in before questions need to be asked as to why copyright law should have only progressed 3 years in the last 40.

Lastly, I'm making this very clear, I. AM. NOT. A. LAWYER. I may seem really forceful with this but I want to make it clear that I am by no stretch of the imagination a professional. Hope these mindless ramblings contribute at least somewhat to the discussion.

The thing is, there's a series of problems, and probably quite a few solutions, but I don't think the governments of the world really... have any interest in dealing with it. There's wars, pollution, overpopulation, finance and so much more to cover, countries like China wouldn't have any interest in a unified copyright duration, and if the U.S. Congress is anything to go by with the famous phrase "the internet is a series of tubes", I don't even think the governments of the world are equipped to come up with a fair solution unless they're being poked in the "right" direction by a certain mouse with a lot of money and fingers in the right pies.

Abolishing copyright law would be a terrible decision in practice, and whilst reforming it or even just taking steps to clarify it would be a good move, I don't think that enough people have an interest in it compared to matters like racial inequality or inter-country conflicts on foreign soil. I hate to be the downer on it all but that's the infuriating truth.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm going to preface this by stating very clearly, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not involved in the law or any related fields, and if you have any questions or queries regarding the actual legislation in place, I'd suggest you should probably contact a professional. (I'm covering my ass here shh)

A common comparison is to patent law, so let me suggest this to sort of set the scene. Say that, in my garage, I happen to find a cure for the common cold. If I apply for a patent, the patent lasts for 20 years after creation. What this means in practice is that I (or my company) am the only ones who can sell this specific cure to the general population. I can continue to sell it afterward, but so can everyone else. There's no confusion if the company changes hands, or even if I sell the company to another person or group. This 20 year period is pretty much universal the world over.

If I make a character, let's say his name is Cold-Curer, and apply for copyright protection (and succeed), in the United States, I can be the sole distributor of Cold-Curer merchandise for my entire life plus 70 years. That's the same here in the UK, but if I'm in Canada it's my life plus 50 years. If I'm in Mexico, it's my life plus 100 years. For context, if I make Cold-Curer today, right now, I (and my estate) are the sole benefactors of the IP for an indetermate time, but let's say that my life expectancy is average for the UK (around 81 years), so that means Cold-Curer enters the public domain in the year 2155.

2155.

Let's put that in context: 2155 is 133 years away. Let's turn back the clock to 133 years ago, the year 1889. Coca-Cola had just been invented. The automobile had existed for three years, and the plane wouldn't exist for 17 years. The Eiffel Tower is erected. The first films in the United States are shot. Books such as Dracula and The Picture of Dorian Gray haven't even been written yet. What I'm trying to say is that this is a long time ago, especially in the context of media.

Both patents and copyrights are intended to serve the same purpose - to ensure that the creator of a work of some description has the opportunity to essentially be paid for their work, and this is why I think the elimination of IP law would be a fundamental loss, because it'd be almost impossible to really make money from your own work unless you were already a large company with money that you could pour into this new IP. Going back to Cold-Curer, what's going to make more money - my own low-budget college short film production, or a multi-million Hollywood movie? Is it fair that I'd be essentially shafted by them? Well... no.

Now, I'm not here to say that copyright law should be shortened to only 20 years after publication, because that would really damage something that's come about in recent years - the archetypical "one-hit wonder" as it were. I point to songs like It's Raining Men by the Weather Girls and Cotton Eyed Joe by Rednex as examples of this - if copyright law were suddenly shortened to 20 years, they wouldn't be able to really make all that much from their own products anymore, so I think it should be longer.

As such: I'm going to say 50 years after publication. Few reasons for this: firstly, it allows nostalgia cycles to take place. 80s stuff would be in the public domain by the 2030s - but most of the early discography of the Beatles would be in the public domain by now. Furthermore, it essentially eliminates the problem of orphaned works (situations where the author is unknown or their date of death is unclear.) However, I'm going to suggest something: I think there should be a sort of international standard for this, and the definition of Fair Use really needs retooling. Let me explain:

Pictured here is a meme. Common method of internet expression, right? Well... I've just committed a crime, on SmashBoards dot com. See, this is a flagrant violation of copyright law! So, let's say that I'm going to court and somehow manage to afford a lawyer of my own to argue the case of fair use... except, well, it's not. This isn't a direct piece of criticism or review of the original product (Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater.) So no, this is a crime. It's clearly taking profits away from small international media company Konami, and I should at the very least pay a fine for this. In fact, here in the UK, it's quite reasonable for the police to sieze all of my electronic equipment in response to my clear action of violating the law!

Websites like YouTube have essentially been defined in the modern age by how they have to work around copyright law, despite the very nature of the internet promoting sharing of content. In fact, by definition, it can be argued that this very website, by nature of existing, is criminal. Look to either side of the text you're reading - unlicensed images the website doesn't own being used illegally. Maybe the term "SmashBoards" isn't a crime out of context, but perhaps the Project M sections are: unlicensed products that steal the IP of others without permission. This isn't me throwing shade, but proving a point:

Copyright law is woefully unequipped for modern media.

I think a retooling of copyright law as a whole would be beneficial, especially in the throes of the internet age. I said this from the beginning, I'm not a lawyer. The suggestions and points I've offered here may, or may not, work. Hell, some of them might end up doing more harm than good! But here's my own final suggestions:

- Copyright law should be unified the world over. We're already partway there with the Berne Convention, that "the duration of the term for copyright protection is the life of the author plus at least 50 years after their death." Having it unified the world over would make things easier considering the nature of the Internet, though: I mentioned earlier that North America alone brings major confusion here, given that Canada gives you protection 50 years after death, the US gives you protection 70 years after death, and Mexico gives protection 100 years after death.

- I think the public domain threshold should be a set period, as opposed to "after death." The argument of "this needs to protect the creator" is something I can understand, but copyright law is supposed to promote creativity: and that should include the original creator.

- Likewise, I think that it should be shortened to 50 years after "creation" (or perhaps publication.) It'd allow for nostalgia cycles to take place, and yet would mean that the public domain is more relevant to modern concepts and interests. There's only so many situations you can write Sherlock Holmes in before questions need to be asked as to why copyright law should have only progressed 3 years in the last 40.

Lastly, I'm making this very clear, I. AM. NOT. A. LAWYER. I may seem really forceful with this but I want to make it clear that I am by no stretch of the imagination a professional. Hope these mindless ramblings contribute at least somewhat to the discussion.

The thing is, there's a series of problems, and probably quite a few solutions, but I don't think the governments of the world really... have any interest in dealing with it. There's wars, pollution, overpopulation, finance and so much more to cover, countries like China wouldn't have any interest in a unified copyright duration, and if the U.S. Congress is anything to go by with the famous phrase "the internet is a series of tubes", I don't even think the governments of the world are equipped to come up with a fair solution unless they're being poked in the "right" direction by a certain mouse with a lot of money and fingers in the right pies.

Abolishing copyright law would be a terrible decision in practice, and whilst reforming it or even just taking steps to clarify it would be a good move, I don't think that enough people have an interest in it compared to matters like racial inequality or inter-country conflicts on foreign soil. I hate to be the downer on it all but that's the infuriating truth.

Awesome post!

What do you think of CCI or other platforms that allow you to monetize the "interest" in a thing rather than the thing itself. Do you think freemiums and gatchas are a necessary evil?

 

[Quillion]

KneeOfJustice99 : I definitely agree that we need unified copyright law given that the internet is more-or-less unified across the world. I also think publication is a better "start" for copyright terms than death.

But I still think Sucumbio 's "renewal only during author's lifetime" would be a much better option than a fixed amount. Sure, I think most people will want to constantly renew their copyrights again and again til they die, but I think it will promote more diligence for creators to pay attention plus allow them to let their terms expire should they want to be friendly to fans.

Also, it's certainly infuriating that most people are too occupied with other matters to pursue an internet-ready copyright policy. Maybe Nintendo's copyright abuse could be our blessing though, since the more they come down on creators (and also take out some crossfire victims), the more people would be unified to fight back to the point of going toe-to-toe with "destroyer of the public domain" Disney.

 

[Sucumbio]

An interesting Case involving this discussion is that of
Gary Bowser and his hacking exploits.

 

[Chuderz]

I fundamentally don't think what these companies are doing is a supposed "abuse" of the system. I think the system is working as intended. It's designed to protect capital and maintain this order hence why in the US the plus years after the death of the creator was constantly being extended by these powerful players. Paul McCartney who's very much still alive was just as important in pushing for this as Disney. Why the hell would he care given how much he's already made and how old he is? Oh because he thinks his descendants are entitled to that future capital. It's all so gross and is in no way defending the little guy at this point. The overwhelming majority of systems in place in our world are not there to protect or pursue the interest of the smaller independent creator/citizen and the ones that are are oftentimes being attacked by these capital protecting systems. I don't think it's ever been materially demonstrated that these systems do anything else much less protect "creators" of any size. That to me seems like an empty platitude.

I think that at minimum others should get to repurpose established works so long as they do it for free like Project M or song covers on Youtube. There's a youtuber remaking Simpsons Hit and Run right now that's really doing an excellent job with it but we won't ever get to play it because of copyright law. That's a damn shame and what happened to the Project M team was a crying damn shame as well. These companies are allowed to snuff out content while offering nothing in return. For what end? Oh their unimpeded profits. This setup also has the added effect of allowing them to continuously release subpar projects because they don't have to compete with fan creations. This is wrong and stifles innovation. If Nintendo wants to sleep on smash for half-decades at a time or ignore segments of their fanbase (competitive melee fans) then let them but they should have to suffer consequences for this kind of practice by having their own content be repurposed into something that satisfies the demands of those segments of their audience.

There are other examples of this. Want a rated R Star Wars movie? Nope ain't happening. Want a Goku vs. Superman movie. Haha good luck with that. Want to live stream react to film content? You can't. Want to play a song on your stream from your favorite band. Don't or else it won't end well for you.

You know who has a very cherished history of allowing the repurposing of their content? Bethesda. Look where it's gone with all these astounding numbers of fan projects whether it's texture packs, combat overhauls, meme reskins or even freaking legitimate AAA games! Bethesda already has a time management problem and with it we'd never get to see Oblivion and Morrowind remakes from them but that's okay because with this intelligent and forward-thinking philosophy Bethesda operates under their fans have taken it upon themselves to do these very important projects. Bethesda even goes a step further by sharing their engine with their community. Bethesda has had some major missteps as of late but dammit I will always appreciate their open-mindedness with mods. Can you imagine what could be if every company was like this? Why imagine and why wait for them to never come to their senses when we can just force the issue by abolishing these systems?

Moving on somewhat but there's also even extremely serious examples of documented patent trolling (which in and of itself is a problem across all fields of interest/industry) to consider here like during the pandemic before the vaccine was created. Certain companies like Monsanto (agricultural company) are literally copyrighting crops and using that to sue farmers when their supposed copyrighted crops cross-pollinate off-site into these farms. That company is so disgusting and deserves to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity but it won't because they're just applying the system as it's set. The problem is inherently the structure of copyright/trademark/patent laws. We actually ended up temporarily waving patents pertinent to the vaccine and wouldn't ya know it drastically sped up the process.

I also think that some things just aren't represented accurately by their IP owners because the IP owners have a vested interest in maintaining a certain brand image for them that may not be reflective of their actual application in the real world. The likes of Spongebob, Mickey Mouse and Pikachu being represented as these cutesy inviting friendly critters isn't accurate or honest because from my point of view they represent greed, arrogance and inauthenticity and I think it'd really neat for artists to maybe get to explore those while most others would stick to their more classic portrayals.

Oh well. That's all I've got. I think my post is a little scatterbrained but it's still a comprehensive list of my feelings on the matter even if it's a little rambly.

 

[fogbadge]

I don't think it's ever been materially demonstrated that these systems do anything else much less protect "creators" of any size. That to me seems like an empty platitude.

do you know any creatives?

The likes of Spongebob, Mickey Mouse and Pikachu being represented as these cutesy inviting friendly critters isn't accurate or honest because from my point of view they represent greed, arrogance and inauthenticity and I think it'd really neat for artists to maybe get to explore those while most others would stick to their more classic portrayals.

what about the microsoft owned crash bandicoot?

 

[Quillion]

what about the sony owned crash bandicoot

Sony never owned him at any point. The IP was held by Universal Games and has changed hands so many times, and now it's in Microsoft's hands now.

 

[fogbadge]

Sony never owned him at any point. The IP was held by Universal Games and has changed hands so many times, and now it's in Microsoft's hands now.

i did check this and it said naughty dog was bought by sony in 2001, did they not get crash?

 

[Quillion]

i did check this and it said naughty dog was bought by sony in 2001, did they not get crash?

Naughty Dog became part of Sony CE by then. But Crash was either in Universal or Vivendi's hands at that time. Neither ND nor Sony owned the IP.

 

[fogbadge]

Naughty Dog became part of Sony CE by then. But Crash was either in Universal or Vivendi's hands at that time. Neither ND nor Sony owned the IP.

I see. Ok then

 

[Chuderz]

do you know any creatives?



what about the microsoft owned crash bandicoot?

No I'm not going on the defensive here. It's a weak debate tactic (plus you selectively quote mined a specific small portion of my longwinded statement to propose a nebulously vague rhetorical question to do so) so you can either address what I said with an actual rebuttal or not but I'm not biting. Whether I do or don't know any creatives has no bearing on what I said. Bigger entertainment properties/performers are objectively the primary benefactors of this system and that's beyond just the general higher frequency of demand for them. They just flat out get egregiously better deals for themselves and only themselves. You're not even addressing how patent law works in conjunction with this topic either.

Go ask "creatives" like Taylor Swift and Arianna Grande how they feel about the musician's union that's trying to organize and they wouldn't give a fraction of **** because they don't have to. Overwhelming majority of creatives that make a living don't own their creations and the ones that do don't usually make enough to live off of them.

This all is also ignoring the more important creations that would potentially be monopolized like the cure for the common cold example. Should medicine really be patented? Should breakthroughs in medicine that put us further on the path towards a cure for the common cold also be patented so that only that company is allowed utilized the research?

If people wanted to explore more with Crash Bandicoot then that's exactly the same thing I was just proposing here. It makes no difference that it's Crash. There's actually plenty of fanmade Crash stuff that I would love to be officially introduced or in this scenario developed beyond simple fanart into other mediums.

 

[fogbadge]

No I'm not going on the defensive here. It's a weak debate tactic (plus you selectively quote mined a specific small portion of my longwinded statement to propose a nebulously vague rhetorical question to do so) so you can either address what I said with an actual rebuttal or not but I'm not biting. Whether I do or don't know any creatives has no bearing on what I said. Bigger entertainment properties/performers are objectively the primary benefactors of this system and that's beyond just the general higher frequency of demand for them. They just flat out get egregiously better deals for themselves and only themselves. You're not even addressing how patent law works in conjunction with this topic either.

Go ask "creatives" like Taylor Swift and Arianna Grande how they feel about the musician's union that's trying to organize and they wouldn't give a fraction of **** because they don't have to. Overwhelming majority of creatives that make a living don't own their creations and the ones that do don't usually make enough to live off of them.

This all is also ignoring the more important creations that would potentially be monopolized like the cure for the common cold example. Should medicine really be patented? Should breakthroughs in medicine that put us further on the path towards a cure for the common cold also be patented so that only that company is allowed utilized the research?

If people wanted to explore more with Crash Bandicoot then that's exactly the same thing I was just proposing here. It makes no difference that it's Crash. There's actually plenty of fanmade Crash stuff that I would love to be officially introduced or in this scenario developed beyond simple fanart into other mediums.

sunshine it wasn't a debate tactic it was a simple yes or no question. though lengthy response would suggest the answer is no as you seem to be complete outsider to the creative sphere. I was trying to assess your understanding of what it’s like to be a creative person stuck on the bottom ladder

the crash bandicoot thing was me pointing out that it seem a bit odd to call pikachu an image of greed and not a microsoft owned character.

lastly i think there's something fundamentally wrong with comparing people hording the cure for the common cold to people stopping modders

I’m not interested in debating you anymore I just want to know why you have 0 interest in what becomes of the non cooperate ip holders






what on earth is taylor swift and arianna grande?

 

[Chuderz]

sunshine it wasn't a debate tactic it was a simple yes or no question. though lengthy response would suggest the answer is no as you seem to be complete outsider to the creative sphere. I was trying to assess your understanding of what it’s like to be a creative person stuck on the bottom ladder

the crash bandicoot thing was me pointing out that it seem a bit odd to call pikachu an image of greed and not a microsoft owned character.

lastly i think there's something fundamentally wrong with comparing people hording the cure for the common cold to people stopping modders

I’m not interested in debating you anymore I just want to know why you have 0 interest in what becomes of the non cooperate ip holders






what on earth is taylor swift and arianna grande?

Not buying it. I deconstructed what you said because it was a lame non-sequitur that I'm not allowing you to pivot off some irrelevant point you decided to bring up for free.

I think creatives would appreciate being allowed freedom to explore creative pursuits without an artificial worry and limitation placed on that pursuit.I don't have zero interest. I have plenty of interest. I'm not just interested in ascertaining all the specifics of a hypothetical event only to have you tell me it's not perfect and use that to claim some kind of victory while also completely ignoring how the current system isn't set up with the small creator in mind anyways. I told you in the Smash thread anyways that it'd be an entire paradigm shift and you're still operating under the impressions of the current paradigm while dealing with this hypothetical. To truly do it would take some seismic shifts in how we operate multiple other industries. Simply abolishing these legal practices while corporations still own the necessary infrastructure to facilitate this change wouldn't work. It'd have to be done under a socialist state I don't see any other way. Reform could work under a capitalist state but it'd be extremely unlikely and in the off chance this reform did happen it'd be under constant attack legal or otherwise.

People would feel entirely different big and small time creators. Who cares? Legitimately it's not because of a lack of interest it's because the answer is it'd be a wide range of different thoughts and feelings depending on the peoples' socioeconomic status coupled together with their life experiences. That's the actual answer but it doesn't really answer the implication you're trying to get past me which is that I somehow don't give a **** about creators and the like. I do but it is one part of what I think are the merits of abolishing copyright and patent law.

And no it's not an unfair comparison. It just highlights to somebody with your biases the pitfalls of the current system. Protecting some one-hit-wonder or pop artist's profits has the same effect. These separate cases of intellectual/patent properties inform the other because the judicial system operates on precedent (unless they're fascists in which they'll just do whatever they want but they're still not supposed to do that) and that's why I used the example. You can take a moral objection to it that's fine but the logic is sound.

Finally to me Pikachu represents capitalism in a way Crash couldn't even dream of but I wouldn't care if somebody wanted to use Crash Bandicoot in a way I personally disagreed with.

 

[fogbadge]

Not buying it. I deconstructed what you said because it was a lame non-sequitur that I'm not allowing you to pivot off some irrelevant point you decided to bring up for free.

I think creatives would appreciate being allowed freedom to explore creative pursuits without an artificial worry and limitation placed on that pursuit.I don't have zero interest. I have plenty of interest. I'm not just interested in ascertaining all the specifics of a hypothetical event only to have you tell me it's not perfect and use that to claim some kind of victory while also completely ignoring how the current system isn't set up with the small creator in mind anyways. I told you in the Smash thread anyways that it'd be an entire paradigm shift and you're still operating under the impressions of the current paradigm while dealing with this hypothetical. To truly do it would take some seismic shifts in how we operate multiple other industries. Simply abolishing these legal practices while corporations still own the necessary infrastructure to facilitate this change wouldn't work. It'd have to be done under a socialist state I don't see any other way. Reform could work under a capitalist state but it'd be extremely unlikely and in the off chance this reform did happen it'd be under constant attack legal or otherwise.

People would feel entirely different big and small time creators. Who cares? Legitimately it's not because of a lack of interest it's because the answer is it'd be a wide range of different thoughts and feelings depending on the peoples' socioeconomic status coupled together with their life experiences. That's the actual answer but it doesn't really answer the implication you're trying to get past me which is that I somehow don't give a **** about creators and the like. I do but it is one part of what I think are the merits of abolishing copyright and patent law.

And no it's not an unfair comparison. It just highlights to somebody with your biases the pitfalls of the current system. Protecting some one-hit-wonder or pop artist's profits has the same effect. These separate cases of intellectual/patent properties inform the other because the judicial system operates on precedent (unless they're fascists in which they'll just do whatever they want but they're still not supposed to do that) and that's why I used the example. You can take a moral objection to it that's fine but the logic is sound.

Finally to me Pikachu represents capitalism in a way Crash couldn't even dream of but I wouldn't care if somebody wanted to use Crash Bandicoot in a way I personally disagreed with.

project much? See this is the biggest flaw in your belief, there is no creative fulfilment in using other peoples ideas. Creatives won’t be interested in using other peoples ideas they want to use their own ideas. This is what you do not get, you don’t understand the feeling of working on something your whole life a the fear of having someone steal it. If you get rid of the laws altogether then there’s nothing anyone can do about it. How would you feel if something of yours was stolen, not even an idea but something that was important and you turned to the law for help and they told you they were allowed to do that? I told you at the start of this that I was in favour of reforming the laws not abolishing them or keeping them as they are. Change to allow for more creative freedom while protecting peoples rights to have their stuff stolen from them. A compromise. You’re only seeing the positives in your scenario you’re refusing to accept the possibility that cons may be bigger than you think. What you’re suggesting would legalise plagiarism

remember you told me that in your hypothetical modders utopia that creatives wouldn’t matter? How did ya think I came to think you didn’t care you basically said so. I also pointed out that a change in attitudes doesn’t change what’s right and wrong but you never responded to that so don’t tell me you deconstructed me arguments when you’ve ignored several.

so you think screwing over modders with copyright law is just as wrong as screwing over the entire human races health with patent law? They’re not on the same level at all. Also you do know that copyright and patents are different things?

ok but Microsoft is just as greedy, probably more in fact than tpc could ever be so you’re picking and choosing there

look I’m sorry I shouldn’t have called you naïve the other day. I understand your position and where your coming from. But I can’t accept a creativity free for all as an objectively good thing

 

[Sucumbio]

"... there is no creative fulfilment in using other peoples ideas." -fogbadge

What is "creative fulfillment?" Do you mean satisfaction for the creator? Or a creator who fulfills a need?

And just as a note the entire Hip Hop industry has been using "other people's ideas" since it was founded and to an extent all art is derivative of what preceded it.

As a matter of irony this post is both unoriginal and yet confers new information for some who may read it.

Or as Mark Twain wrote:

"I am persuaded that a coldly-thought-out and independent verdict upon a fashion in clothes, or manners, or literature, or politics, or religion, or any other matter that is projected into the field of our notice and interest, is a most rare thing -- if it has indeed ever existed."

 

[fogbadge]

"... there is no creative fulfilment in using other peoples ideas." -fogbadge

What is "creative fulfillment?" Do you mean satisfaction for the creator? Or a creator who fulfills a need?

And just as a note the entire Hip Hop industry has been using "other people's ideas" since it was founded and to an extent all art is derivative of what preceded it.

As a matter of irony this post is both unoriginal and yet confers new information for some who may read it.

Or as Mark Twain wrote:

"I am persuaded that a coldly-thought-out and independent verdict upon a fashion in clothes, or manners, or literature, or politics, or religion, or any other matter that is projected into the field of our notice and interest, is a most rare thing -- if it has indeed ever existed."

the former is what I was thinking of. And when I say “someone else’s idea” i mean just straight up coping. There’s is a difference between that and homage, parody, reference and satire. There’s also a difference between using another idea and changing into a new one. You build on it, you change and you add others to it and soon enough it becomes something new.

there’s also a point where something is so different from how it was originally that it might as well be something new. And pretending that it’s the same doesn’t change that

 

[StoicPhantom]

Copyright and patent law is a pretty easy one when you boil it down to it's roots, which is a corporate monopoly. Are corporate monopolies bad? Most would say yes. Why? Stagnation. When you only give one entity the sole right to make something you are stuck with whatever they can or are willing to produce. Monopolies are bad because the original creator isn't necessarily the best at making whatever it is they invented. Microsoft initially invented the "just works" home desktop OS and Windows was the dominant OS until Apple came along and perfected the "just works" computer.

I say corporate monopoly because corporations were what copyright laws were designed for. Having copyright that exists well beyond the life span of a human is completely nonsensical unless it was intended for corporations to be able to hold IP well beyond when it will be relevant to the mainstream public. Some argue it's for descendants, but most IP are held by the corporations themselves. Publishing is a major racket that only really exists to strip IP rights from their creators. Musicians don't actually make much in the way of royalties. Regardless of which media industry an artist is in, they are usually forced into publishing contracts that hands their IP rights over to the publisher.

Some would argue that to counter this one should go independent. But there's a study by the Copyright Office (that I'm having trouble finding for some reason) that found an average of $200,000 in court fees are usually required. Not only would that eat up any claim winnings, but it might actually put independent artists in the red if they tried litigation. Only the big artists and publishers are able to truly utilize the courts for copyright.

Copyright/patent law exists entirely for the corporations to legally steal and indefinitely hold the rights to other people's works. It has never worked any other way and only the corporations themselves can really utilize it in any real sense. And not only can they protect themselves, but they can easily use their resources to strong-arm others, even when they're the ones in the wrong, by stalling court proceedings to force bankruptcy from court costs in the smaller entity.

Copyright law is why the entire Western media sphere is creatively bankrupt. Corporations have a complete stranglehold on media creation and publication so Western media is pretty just an endless cycle of remakes and derivatives due to corporations being unwilling to take risks on new IPs. Japan seems like the last bastion for creativity in games, but Capcom and Square Enix seem to be working hard at ruining their franchises while Konami is the poster child for corporate ****ery. So even Japan might not be safe when it comes to video games.

If you want to stop the creative bankruptcy and homogenization of media not only is abolition of copyright recommended, it is mandatory. Protecting creativity is a complete lie and it enforces corporate takeover instead. Things have only gotten worse and not better with its implementation. If you are old enough to remember the glory days of video games, you should know that the only way to get them back is to return rights back to the enthusiasts.

This is what you do not get, you don’t understand the feeling of working on something your whole life a the fear of having someone steal it

Creators create for the sake of creation. The starving artist metaphor exists for a reason. Even if they received no recognition or compensation they would still create because they are driven by a particular form of insanity that compels them to do so. Everyone else are complete posers in that regard.

If by copy you mean directly copy as in piracy, then that problem naturally takes care of itself. If your work has real value, people will recognize and appreciate/compensate that work. Others may try to copy and redistribute that work yes, but only you have the talent to create future works in your style while they can only copy existing works. That alone makes you inherently of a value that can never be replicated and copyright could never affect.

Want an example? Think of the last time, if any, that a publisher used IP law to boot a creator whose work you've enjoyed from their own work for whatever reason. Did that work continue to exhibit the same quality or did it cause you and other fans to complain that the work in question is not the same? In other words, is the work itself the important thing or the creator behind it? Can the Metal Gear project continue to thrive without Hideo Kojima? Has Silent Hill ever been the same without the original Team Silent? Has Star Wars continued to make fans happy through multiple owners? Are we ever going to get a decent Tomb Raider again?

A talented creator has inherent value and has no need for copyright. People will follow that creator rather than cheap knockoffs even if those knockoffs are technically still the real IP. The only people overly obsessed with forcing recognition and compensation are narcissists and mediocrities. These are the people going on about having a "brand" and otherwise turning themselves into a commodity. Real creators will always continue to create new things regardless if they are cheated out of what originally made them famous by a corporation. That's because they have actual talent and a desire to create and aren't mediocrities that are obsessed with the only thing that made them mildly famous.


If you mean copy as in take someone's idea and do it better, then I would happily applaud that. There are many good concepts whose original creators had poor execution that I think would be better done by others. Assassin's Creed was a good concept that was ruined by the inability to trust that the player's attention span could handle playing without being constantly forced into le epic fight scenes with random guards that for some reason had the same athletic and parkour ability as a master assassin. If we could keep the original intact and give it to someone who could remove the tedium and actually allow creative freedom for the players to carry out cool and complex assassinations we wouldn't have to waste an otherwise interesting game.

Just because someone originally came up with an idea doesn't mean they're the best to implement it. And just because someone copyrighted/patented an idea first doesn't mean they were the first to think of it. Really, monopolizing ideas was a silly concept that can only hurt society in the long run. The Free and Open Source Software community is a good example at how allowing people to freely copy, modify, and redistribute other people's works leads to innovation and preservation of useful software.



TL;DR: Just because you **** out a product doesn't mean you're entitled to recognition or compensation. Actual talented creators will get the recognition they deserve and everyone else will wallow in their mediocrity. Corporations rely on copyright/patent law in order to sustain their mediocrity and inability to create by stealing other's works and then hypocritically enforcing monopolization of the IPs in their collection. Abolition of copyright/patent law is what actually protects a creator's works and its only mediocrity that copyright/patent law protects.

 

[Sucumbio]

Just because you **** out a product doesn't mean you're entitled to recognition or compensation. Actual talented creators will get the recognition they deserve and everyone else will wallow in their mediocrity. Corporations rely on copyright/patent law in order to sustain their mediocrity and inability to create by stealing other's works and then hypocritically enforcing monopolization of the IPs in their collection. Abolition of copyright/patent law is what actually protects a creator's works and its only mediocrity that copyright/patent law protects.

A bit bleak though some parts true.

I am my own prime example. When I started I followed the breadcrumbs and interfaced with the corporate mechanism. My ante was substantial. Until it wasn't. I realized then that such a thing only appears attainable after the fact, that success is really a journey and that only you can define what that is because it's all that really matters.

Now, one may say that is delusional. Or arrogant. Well, yes. I can attest: I am indeed self-interested and egotistical (everyone is) Because I choose to be (we all do). I am also highly empathic (not as common) and cannot tolerate suffering (?).

 

[fogbadge]

Copyright and patent law is a pretty easy one when you boil it down to it's roots, which is a corporate monopoly. Are corporate monopolies bad? Most would say yes. Why? Stagnation. When you only give one entity the sole right to make something you are stuck with whatever they can or are willing to produce. Monopolies are bad because the original creator isn't necessarily the best at making whatever it is they invented. Microsoft initially invented the "just works" home desktop OS and Windows was the dominant OS until Apple came along and perfected the "just works" computer.

maybe but what they cover aren't the same and legally they aren't

I say corporate monopoly because corporations were what copyright laws were designed for. Having copyright that exists well beyond the life span of a human is completely nonsensical unless it was intended for corporations to be able to hold IP well beyond when it will be relevant to the mainstream public. Some argue it's for descendants, but most IP are held by the corporations themselves. Publishing is a major racket that only really exists to strip IP rights from their creators. Musicians don't actually make much in the way of royalties. Regardless of which media industry an artist is in, they are usually forced into publishing contracts that hands their IP rights over to the publisher.

that's not exactly true. there are people who lived to see their copy rights expire but from the days when it lasted 75 years regardless of if the person was still alive

If you want to stop the creative bankruptcy and homogenization of media not only is abolition of copyright recommended, it is mandatory.

what you need is an imagination. the ability to come up with new things all the time

Creators create for the sake of creation. The starving artist metaphor exists for a reason. Even if they received no recognition or compensation they would still create

i know that. did you think to read the rest of the conversation before chiming in?

because they are driven by a particular form of insanity that compels them to do so.

rude

If by copy you mean directly copy as in piracy, then that problem naturally takes care of itself. If your work has real value, people will recognize and appreciate/compensate that work. Others may try to copy and redistribute that work yes, but only you have the talent to create future works in your style while they can only copy existing works. That alone makes you inherently of a value that can never be replicated and copyright could never affect.

main flaw with that is what is considered to have value is subjective

Want an example? Think of the last time, if any, that a publisher used IP law to boot a creator whose work you've enjoyed from their own work for whatever reason.

err, never

Did that work continue to exhibit the same quality or did it cause you and other fans to complain that the work in question is not the same? In other words, is the work itself the important thing or the creator behind it?

the flaw with that is thinking people create the same quality every single time but that just doesn't happen

Has Silent Hill ever been the same without the original Team Silent?

as i understood it team silent was different people every time

Has Star Wars continued to make fans happy through multiple owners?

everyone seemed to agree that the original creator was the problem

A talented creator has inherent value and has no need for copyright. People will follow that creator rather than cheap knockoffs even if those knockoffs are technically still the real IP.

but what happens if their work is stolen before they get followers? how do you prove it was yours in the first place?

If you mean copy as in take someone's idea and do it better, then I would happily applaud that. There are many good concepts whose original creators had poor execution that I think would be better done by others. Assassin's Creed was a good concept that was ruined by the inability to trust that the player's attention span could handle playing without being constantly forced into le epic fight scenes with random guards that for some reason had the same athletic and parkour ability as a master assassin. If we could keep the original intact and give it to someone who could remove the tedium and actually allow creative freedom for the players to carry out cool and complex assassinations we wouldn't have to waste an otherwise interesting game.

surely that counterpoints your prevoius statement

Just because someone originally came up with an idea doesn't mean they're the best to implement it. And just because someone copyrighted/patented an idea first doesn't mean they were the first to think of it. Really, monopolizing ideas was a silly concept that can only hurt society in the long run. The Free and Open Source Software community is a good example at how allowing people to freely copy, modify, and redistribute other people's works leads to innovation and preservation of useful software.

then why get so upset about kojima leaving metal gear? by your own logic here surely someone better might end up in control

Actual talented creators will get the recognition they deserve and everyone else will wallow in their mediocrity.

uh huh. is there a middle ground to allow for the development of talent or have we to go straight to the wallowing if we don't get it right the first time[/quote]

Abolition of copyright/patent law is what actually protects a creator's works and its only mediocrity that copyright/patent law protects.

but if your work is stolen and you have no way of proving that you created it in the first place and you're yet to receive recognition then what? it's your word against somebody else's and it will all come down to hear say



also you seem to have forgotten about people who create because they have a desire to entertain. And then of course there are those who wish to educate

 

[StoicPhantom]

i know that. did you think to read the rest of the conversation before chiming in?

Your contributions to this topic have been implying that copyright law is needed because of the feelings of individual creators. I'm saying that not only do their feelings not matter when it comes to the law, but real creators don't need recognition or compensation to continue creation. If you knew that, you don't seem to understand it.

main flaw with that is what is considered to have value is subjective

That's not a flaw, that's a feature. Value may be subjective to the individual, but the amount of individuals that find something valuable is objective. If your work doesn't have many people that find it valuable, it probably wasn't valuable in the first place. If it does have lots of people that find it valuable, they would rather the real thing over a copy. In a hypothetical world without copyright would you want to purchase the latest Smash from Masahiro Sakurai and affiliates or some random person?

but what happens if their work is stolen before they get followers? how do you prove it was yours in the first place?

There's no merit in people stealing your work if you aren't known in the first place. People steal other people's work when that work is proven valuable. That's why there were Chinese knockoffs of Star Wars toys and not of some teenager's fanfic OC. If someone manages to steal your work for whatever reason, you can just make another one while they can't.

surely that counterpoints your prevoius statement

It doesn't. You're conflating two different points here. A talented creator would have executed their idea properly whereas the AC devs did not. Their vision in AC was incomplete and they tried to fill the gaps with what was considered trendy in modern game design. Or the corporate suits ended up interfering and mandating those things. Regardless, they completely ruined their own idea and the game came out really half-baked.

then why get so upset about kojima leaving metal gear? by your own logic here surely someone better might end up in control

Once again, you are conflating two different things here. Kojima left because Konami went through a corporate restructuring that wrested creative control from him and other creators that previously were allowed to manage their own projects. And Konami then subsequently tried to turn Metal Gear into a zombie game that naturally didn't go over well with fans and the sales reflected that.

This is going to my point that copyright steals works from creators, corporate suits make for terrible creative direction, and that the works of talented creators will not be the same if someone else does it. Because it is Kojima's unique style that was imbued on Metal Gear and that is not something that can be replicated. And that's what makes him inherently valuable in a way that the AC team was not.

uh huh. is there a middle ground to allow for the development of talent or have we to go straight to the wallowing if we don't get it right the first time

I don't really know where you are going with this. You either do make something valuable or you don't. How long it takes you or how many tries doesn't matter. You'll get that recognition when you deserve that recognition.

but if your work is stolen and you have no way of proving that you created it in the first place and you're yet to receive recognition then what? it's your word against somebody else's and it will all come down to hear say

And that is again putting the cart before the horse. Works worth stealing are works that are already proven successful. Rather than worrying about whether or not someone might hypothetically steal your work, you should be worried about whether your work is worth stealing. Again, fraudulence can only be maintained for so long before people realize that the fraud doesn't actually have any talent. If you are a creator worth your salt, you can make a new work to prove your worth.

also you seem to have forgotten about people who create because they have a desire to entertain. And then of course there are those who wish to educate

This doesn't contradict anything I've said as those too would be subject to scrutiny. Entertainers and teachers are also subject to value judgements.

what you need is an imagination. the ability to come up with new things all the time

Imagination doesn't matter if it is quashed by the corporations that hold the rights to the IP. The media industry is rife with complaints about creators constantly fighting with corporate over creative control in their own works. I even illustrated this above with the Konami example. It's not to say that there isn't any creative artists in the West, but that the corporate stranglehold on media ends up crushing them.

As an example, corporate bootlickers anti-piracy software advocates inform us that we need draconian DRM in our games nowadays because we need to stave off pirates. And they claim that DRM being eventually circumvented doesn't matter because games make the majority of their sales in the first two weeks. But why is it that games only really sell during launch and not throughout their lifetime? And why are the initial sales the only ones that are important?

Valkyria Chronicles is one of my favorite strategy games and it managed to quadruple its sales over six months from its initial disappointing (to Sega) launch. And despite Sega's best attempts to kill the franchise, it managed to persist through multiple iterations. And it did so entirely through word of mouth and fan dedication. Despite releasing in the same month as GTA IV, Gears of War 2, and Call of Duty: World at War, its quality stood on its own and when it was allowed to breath it became quite popular. That's what word of mouth (and a price cut) can do for an amazing game.

So what gives when it comes to modern games? Why can't they sell much past two weeks? To make a long story short, it comes entirely down to the business model for games nowadays. Games are sold by hype generation via deceptive marketing. They make most of their sales in the first couple weeks because those publishers do everything from media blitzes to preorder bonuses to convince people to buy the game the very second it comes out. Because word of mouth works to their detriment when it turns out the game was much more underwhelming than their marketing led on.

And that's why it is so important for them to curb piracy in those initial two weeks. If people were allowed to try before they buy word of mouth would spread that the game is in fact another mediocre product that marketing way overhyped. And once word gets out that it wasn't what it was cracked up to be, interest dies pretty quickly. These hype cycles are meant to artificially inflate sales of a game that is then dumped after that two weeks and half-assed DLC milking for the next one to come down the conveyor belt.

Valkyria Chronicles could stand on its own and thrived on word of mouth even after it initially launched in the shadow of famous franchises. Your typical game nowadays dreads word of mouth because it will dispel the illusion that marketing created. And that's where the root problem lies. These corporations don't care about making a quality game and try to min-max sales to increase their bottom line. The Valkyria Chronicles franchise struggled under Sega's repeated bone-headed decisions that were based around unrealistic expectations of how much profit the game could generate. It managed to survive, but other games haven't been so lucky.

So it ultimately ends up coming down to whether a game can be created or shoehorned into these business strategies that have nothing to do with creativity. Valkyria Chronicles was unique enough to pioneer a new subgenre but that doesn't matter to Sega. Art has no meaning to these corporations and so they don't appreciate works that create their own niche. Instead, it is demanded more and more that media fit a particular mold so that it can be easily integrated into business schemes.

And that's why everything is so homogeneous nowadays. Games are created to fit business strategies, not to make a wonderful experience. If a game can't fit a particular mold designed for mass consumption and money milking it has a very difficult time surviving in the current climate. The focus on realism means avoiding unique art styles potentially turning some people off and the oversaturation of certain trends and genres comes from modeling new games off the success of previous ones.

Imagination still exists when it isn't being suppressed by business. In order to return to a more diverse era of media we have to remove the parasitic business component from media. And we do that by destroying the center of their power, which is copyright. Nobody would give a flying **** about a lot of these publishers if they weren't holding beloved franchises hostage. Publishing is essentially one giant gatekeeping scheme to farm IPs that might become relevant. Because these publishers know they would be ostracized immediately if they couldn't exploit the emotional attachment people have to their favorite media.


Bottom line, profit has no place in art. Breaking even means properly paying your employees and covering all of your expenses. Profit is a nice bonus that comes after that. Profit is nice to give a little headroom on the next development cycle, as a reserve for when sales are poor, and to potentially expand your operation and resources. But it should never take precedence over making a good product. People have forgotten this and allowed this obsession with profit to destroy their society and culture. Say no to massive overinflated budgets, growth targets, and treating creators like slaves. Cull the corporate element and let media and culture prosper again.

 

[fogbadge]

Your contributions to this topic have been implying that copyright law is needed because of the feelings of individual creators. I'm saying that not only do their feelings not matter when it comes to the law, but real creators don't need recognition or compensation to continue creation. If you knew that, you don't seem to understand it.

do you really think people wouldn't care if their work was stolen? you can still create sure but that doesn't mean it would hurt to have something you worked so hard on

That's not a flaw, that's a feature. Value may be subjective to the individual, but the amount of individuals that find something valuable is objective. If your work doesn't have many people that find it valuable, it probably wasn't valuable in the first place. If it does have lots of people that find it valuable, they would rather the real thing over a copy. In a hypothetical world without copyright would you want to purchase the latest Smash from Masahiro Sakurai and affiliates or some random person?

there's a hundreds of factors that go into why a person. sakurai isn't the reason i buy any of his games.

There's no merit in people stealing your work if you aren't known in the first place. People steal other people's work when that work is proven valuable. That's why there were Chinese knockoffs of Star Wars toys and not of some teenager's fanfic OC. If someone manages to steal your work for whatever reason, you can just make another one while they can't.

people don't always teal things for merit. some people just do it out of spite. as i said just cause you can make something new doesn't mean having the other one stolen hurt any less

It doesn't. You're conflating two different points here. A talented creator would have executed their idea properly whereas the AC devs did not. Their vision in AC was incomplete and they tried to fill the gaps with what was considered trendy in modern game design. Or the corporate suits ended up interfering and mandating those things. Regardless, they completely ruined their own idea and the game came out really half-baked.

so there's merit in some series being taken over by others like assassin's creed but not other series like metal gear?

Once again, you are conflating two different things here. Kojima left because Konami went through a corporate restructuring that wrested creative control from him and other creators that previously were allowed to manage their own projects. And Konami then subsequently tried to turn Metal Gear into a zombie game that naturally didn't go over well with fans and the sales reflected that.

well i will agree that konami's track record does make it seem unlikely that anyone competent will go any near any series of theirs. though i've never been convinced kojima was competent

Because it is Kojima's unique style that was imbued on Metal Gear and that is not something that can be replicated.

i pity the people who try

I don't really know where you are going with this. You either do make something valuable or you don't. How long it takes you or how many tries doesn't matter.

so you either have talent or you don't? people can't improve their skills?

You'll get that recognition when you deserve that recognition.

well that's just not true. history is full of people who did not get the recognition they deserved when they deserved it. one of the best examples being vincent van goh who received no recognition in his life time but who clearly deserved it.

then there's the many people who worked on the technology for the television while john logie baird gets most of the credits

robert hooke who isaac newton tried to erase from history

guglielmo marconi is often cited as the inventor of radio with including the many people who contributed to the tech before him

and let's not forget all the modern day people who get it just for having money

i could go on but the point is that you get recognition when you get it

And that is again putting the cart before the horse. Works worth stealing are works that are already proven successful. Rather than worrying about whether or not someone might hypothetically steal your work, you should be worried about whether your work is worth stealing. Again, fraudulence can only be maintained for so long before people realize that the fraud doesn't actually have any talent.

that doesn't answer the question. it would be up to the thief if the work has value and as i said everything has value to someone. that's only if the fraud tried to make stuff of their own. odds are they stole the work for the money and wouldn't need to make anything new if they were getting the money

If you are a creator worth your salt, you can make a new work to prove your worth.

again that doesn't mean people wouldn't care that their work was stolen. it's not about worth it's about having something you care about taken away from you

This doesn't contradict anything I've said as those too would be subject to scrutiny. Entertainers and teachers are also subject to value judgements.

you said people either only create cause they want or for ego i was giving you other examples of why they would

Imagination doesn't matter if it is quashed by the corporations that hold the rights to the IP. The media industry is rife with complaints about creators constantly fighting with corporate over creative control in their own works. I even illustrated this above with the Konami example. It's not to say that there isn't any creative artists in the West, but that the corporate stranglehold on media ends up crushing them.

i never once said that wasn't happening

But why is it that games only really sell during launch and not throughout their lifetime? And why are the initial sales the only ones that are important?

hype culture, marketing and people not putting any stock in word of mouth

Valkyria Chronicles is one of my favorite strategy games and it managed to quadruple its sales over six months from its initial disappointing (to Sega) launch. And despite Sega's best attempts to kill the franchise, it managed to persist through multiple iterations. And it did so entirely through word of mouth and fan dedication. Despite releasing in the same month as GTA IV, Gears of War 2, and Call of Duty: World at War, its quality stood on its own and when it was allowed to breath it became quite popular. That's what word of mouth (and a price cut) can do for an amazing game.

what's that got to do with reforming laws so that an individual creator can be protected and not corporations?

So what gives when it comes to modern games? Why can't they sell much past two weeks? To make a long story short, it comes entirely down to the business model for games nowadays. Games are sold by hype generation via deceptive marketing. They make most of their sales in the first couple weeks because those publishers do everything from media blitzes to preorder bonuses to convince people to buy the game the very second it comes out. Because word of mouth works to their detriment when it turns out the game was much more underwhelming than their marketing led on.

oh i see you were planning on answering your own question

And that's why it is so important for them to curb piracy in those initial two weeks. If people were allowed to try before they buy word of mouth would spread that the game is in fact another mediocre product that marketing way overhyped. And once word gets out that it wasn't what it was cracked up to be, interest dies pretty quickly. These hype cycles are meant to artificially inflate sales of a game that is then dumped after that two weeks and half-assed DLC milking for the next one to come down the conveyor belt.

when i was young we only knew about games from word of mouth

Valkyria Chronicles could stand on its own and thrived on word of mouth even after it initially launched in the shadow of famous franchises. Your typical game nowadays dreads word of mouth because it will dispel the illusion that marketing created. And that's where the root problem lies. These corporations don't care about making a quality game and try to min-max sales to increase their bottom line. The Valkyria Chronicles franchise struggled under Sega's repeated bone-headed decisions that were based around unrealistic expectations of how much profit the game could generate. It managed to survive, but other games haven't been so lucky.

speak for yourself on that one.

fans do that to themselves as well. sometimes people hype things up for other people to much.

So it ultimately ends up coming down to whether a game can be created or shoehorned into these business strategies that have nothing to do with creativity. Valkyria Chronicles was unique enough to pioneer a new subgenre but that doesn't matter to Sega. Art has no meaning to these corporations and so they don't appreciate works that create their own niche. Instead, it is demanded more and more that media fit a particular mold so that it can be easily integrated into business schemes.

i can think of many game series which that isn't true for and others where they say the creativity is what ruined it

And that's why everything is so homogeneous nowadays. Games are created to fit business strategies, not to make a wonderful experience. If a game can't fit a particular mold designed for mass consumption and money milking it has a very difficult time surviving in the current climate. The focus on realism means avoiding unique art styles potentially turning some people off and the oversaturation of certain trends and genres comes from modeling new games off the success of previous ones.

you been watching yahtzee?

Imagination still exists when it isn't being suppressed by business. In order to return to a more diverse era of media we have to remove the parasitic business component from media. And we do that by destroying the center of their power, which is copyright. Nobody would give a flying **** about a lot of these publishers if they weren't holding beloved franchises hostage. Publishing is essentially one giant gatekeeping scheme to farm IPs that might become relevant. Because these publishers know they would be ostracized immediately if they couldn't exploit the emotional attachment people have to their favorite media.

creativity comes from the mind the only thing that can truly suppress it is the mind itself. age, lack of self confidence etc. you kept saying if you have your ideas stolen just make something new so by that logic the strangle hold shouldn't matter cause as you said you can just make something new

Bottom line, profit has no place in art. Breaking even means properly paying your employees and covering all of your expenses. Profit is a nice bonus that comes after that. Profit is nice to give a little headroom on the next development cycle, as a reserve for when sales are poor, and to potentially expand your operation and resources. But it should never take precedence over making a good product. People have forgotten this and allowed this obsession with profit to destroy their society and culture. Say no to massive overinflated budgets, growth targets, and treating creators like slaves. Cull the corporate element and let media and culture prosper again.

ok but that's got nothing to do with what i was talking about: the suggestion that people could try to reform the laws to protect a person and not a business and that hording IPs cannot stagnate creativity because people don't need to use pre existing characters to make something

 

[StoicPhantom]

I am my own prime example. When I started I followed the breadcrumbs and interfaced with the corporate mechanism. My ante was substantial. Until it wasn't. I realized then that such a thing only appears attainable after the fact, that success is really a journey and that only you can define what that is because it's all that really matters.

I didn't reply to this for some reason in my initial post and wasn't sure if this would be seen in an edit (sorry for the double post).

I think you have the correct thinking. I've been operating under the framework given to me by fogbadge, but I think it is the wrong mentality to use creation as a means of recognition or compensation.

The way I see it, there are three ways one can go about creation. One is having a vision you want to execute, two is desiring to create for the sake of it, and three is to use it as a means to fame and fortune. So which one do people think would produce the better product: a coherent vision and desire to create or merely seeing one's creation has a means to furthering their own material gain and narcissism?

If you have a coherent vision and desire to create you have a decent chance of producing something good. If you lack a vision but have a desire to create you might flounder for a bit until you figure out what you want to do. If you are just using creation as a means to propel yourself into fame and fortune you are likely setting yourself up for failure.

So in the end, I think people need to realize that there is supposed to be joy in creation. Even if what you made won't be making waves at least you can be satisfied that you did something productive. People that setup an overly idealistic goal and then continue to judge themselves by it are only bringing themselves pain. This goes double if they are trying to cynically use creation as a means for fame and fortune. Not to say that desiring to be the best is a bad thing, but that just because one may not end up living up to that lofty goal doesn't mean they aren't worth anything. And people that destroy their vision and/or artistic integrity under the belief that their work will be more likeable or profitable will never truly know the joy to be had in creating something that is uniquely yours.

Edit: Ninja'd lol.

 

[StoicPhantom]

Now I'm double posting (maybe (sorry)).

do you really think people wouldn't care if their work was stolen? you can still create sure but that doesn't mean it would hurt to have something you worked so hard on

All the creators who have had their IP stolen from their publishers were devastated from what I heard.

The problem with all of your comments on stealing is that they have been hypothetical scenarios that seem to be pretty rare. I mean, how often do you run into a situation where someone steals your work out of spite? And as a complete nobody? Why would a thief, who was concerned about stealing other people's work to make a profit, do it from someone who's work hasn't achieved success versus stealing from someone who has?

But the biggest issue is that copyright law doesn't really do much to address these scenarios. Again, what do you mean by copy? If you mean piracy, copyright law has done **** all in preventing piracy even in countries that observe US copyright laws. I can go on the internet and download practically anything relevant right now with little to no repercussions. Yes, there some people actually selling unauthorized versions. It is my humble opinion that buying pirated copies instead of downloading the free ones is really stupid. But there are people who do that. Regardless, that money is not going back to the original creator either way. There's a reason why those people aren't using the official sources after all.

If you mean claiming credit for another person's creations, exactly who are we talking about? Who is gonna take some random that claims they created Solid Snake seriously even in a world without copyright? If you mean small creators on Twitter or Deviant Art that no one cares about, they don't have the resources to do any litigation in the first place. I feel for them, but unfortunately reality can really bite for those who fall through the cracks. Copyright law isn't protecting them either.

But yes, as you've mentioned history is full of people who didn't get credit for their works. Or rather, they did eventually given that you've heard about it. Did you know that Steve Jobs wasn't the creator of the smart phone? It was actually the US Government that developed the technologies that went into the smartphone. The iPhone wasn't even the first of its kind either. And it was actually Steve Wozniak that was the real brains behind what made Apple relevant. Jobs was a blowhard that took all the credit from everyone else and is one of the biggest frauds in the tech industry that is already full of frauds. Neither copyright or patent law did anything to prevent this.

so there's merit in some series being taken over by others like assassin's creed but not other series like metal gear?

If one believes to be so then yes. The thing about a world where copyright has been abolished is that you are completely free to choose who's version you want to go with or even appreciate all versions if you so choose. If value is subjective, you are free to go with whatever you please. AC was a half-baked product with a decent concept whereas changing a franchise from a stealth action with political intrigue into a zombie survival horror was a really stupid idea in my opinion. The former doubled down on its half-baked ideas with sequels and really needed someone better at the wheel while the latter proved why replacing the original creator with corporate suits was a bad idea in that particular instance.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making here, but these aren't contradictory ideas nor do they contradict abolition of copyright overall.

so you either have talent or you don't? people can't improve their skills?

Copyright law doesn't speed up the process of recognition or skill improvement either. Let's not go on tangents here because this excessive point by point thing you're doing is getting to be a bit much even for me.

creativity comes from the mind the only thing that can truly suppress it is the mind itself. age, lack of self confidence etc. you kept saying if you have your ideas stolen just make something new so by that logic the strangle hold shouldn't matter cause as you said you can just make something new

Well, if you're going to completely miss what I was saying you might think that. You are once again conflating two different things here. There is a difference between a hypothetical newcomer having their work stolen by a hypothetical thief with poor value judgement in your hypothetical situation and the reality of billion dollar corporations controlling the distribution and marketing of all media. Context and nuance would obviously matter in different situations so kindly stop taking my answer to one of your points and conflating it with another answer to another one of your points.

It takes lots of capital to get some projects off the ground. While I think the industry needs to get off its obsession with hyperinflated budgets, the reality is that some types of games or genres require more than a one man indie team can handle. I'm not knocking indie games, but there is a reason most of them are simple 2D games. It'd be nice for developers to team up with publishers that can give them those resources without signing over everything of worth to those publishers.

what's that got to do with reforming laws so that an individual creator can be protected and not corporations?

ok but that's got nothing to do with what i was talking about: the suggestion that people could try to reform the laws to protect a person and not a business and that hording IPs cannot stagnate creativity because people don't need to use pre existing characters to make something

I've already gone into great detail why hording IPs does stagnate creativity. And that's because most dev teams are forced to contract with publishers in order to realize their vision. And when you sign your IP to these guys they're going to have complete control over your creative direction. That's before getting into how these guys control most of the distribution platforms and media airwaves.

None of the proposed reforms in this topic address this problem. You can make all the memes as long you don't use garbage platforms like Youtube that excessively kowtow to media corporations. In fact, the internet is pretty much mostly just memes nowadays, with people using pictures with text to say something they could have said in one line of text. The biggest issue with copyright has always been about media publishers abusing this law to monopolize the industry.

If your reforms don't address publisher coercion of developers and artists into signing away their IP, they aren't really reforming much. And because coercion is difficult to do anything about, as it is technically voluntary, I don't see any effective reforms that can even be done. You pretty much have to abolish copyright in order to do anything about that.

And you do need to do something about that if you actually care about creators keeping their works. I don't know how it can be implied that we need copyright because hypothetical thieves with poor risk/reward management might steal your unknown work, but the robbery in broad daylight by publishers from creators isn't a bigger problem.

You've been sidestepping this so I'll just ask outright: isn't firing or forcing to resign creators from their own works not a form of stealing by the publisher, even if legal? Wouldn't Kojima, Itagaki, or anyone else that was forced away from their creations, while the publisher continues to make changes to and profits from them, not want their works taken from them and feel bad when it happened? Or is it fine to wrest control of their own works from creators as long as it is technically considered legal?

I'm not entirely sure what you're even trying to argue anymore to be honest. I started off by describing how copyright law allows publishers to legally steal IP from their original creators and we've ended up talking about hypothetical thieves that might steal works from newbie creators. Isn't actual stealing happening in real life a little more important than what ifs? I mean, if you're so worried about work being stolen, why not address the stealing that is actually happening from actual creators?

you been watching yahtzee?

I don't do the Youtubers outside of those that provide technical information and tutorials.

 

[fogbadge]

All the creators who have had their IP stolen from their publishers were devastated from what I heard.

then stop saying we can just make more stuff as if it doesn't matter

The problem with all of your comments on stealing is that they have been hypothetical scenarios that seem to be pretty rare.

and you're screanrio where we get rid of the laws and everything just works out isn't a hypothetical? and because the crime happens rarely it isn't a problem?

I mean, how often do you run into a situation where someone steals your work out of spite?

try living next to england for all of history

And as a complete nobody? Why would a thief, who was concerned about stealing other people's work to make a profit, do it from someone who's work hasn't achieved success versus stealing from someone who has?

so what they instead steal from someone with a high profile where they'd be more likely to get caught out? if you're trying to pass someone else work as your own then doing it with someone who has a high profile would make the entire thing completely redundant.

But the biggest issue is that copyright law doesn't really do much to address these scenarios.

yeah and the lack of laws doesn't make the benefits you think they will

Again, what do you mean by copy? If you mean piracy, copyright law has done **** all in preventing piracy even in countries that observe US copyright laws. I can go on the internet and download practically anything relevant right now with little to no repercussions. Yes, there some people actually selling unauthorized versions. It is my humble opinion that buying pirated copies instead of downloading the free ones is really stupid. But there are people who do that. Regardless, that money is not going back to the original creator either way. There's a reason why those people aren't using the official sources after all.

i was referring to plagiarism

If you mean claiming credit for another person's creations, exactly who are we talking about? Who is gonna take some random that claims they created Solid Snake seriously even in a world without copyright?

nobody ever said people would. i cant think why anyone would want to

If you mean small creators on Twitter or Deviant Art that no one cares about, they don't have the resources to do any litigation in the first place. I feel for them, but unfortunately reality can really bite for those who fall through the cracks. Copyright law isn't protecting them either.

so because they're small they don't matter? we shouldn't replace the laws with something that could still protect them or make it easier for them to do so?

But yes, as you've mentioned history is full of people who didn't get credit for their works. Or rather, they did eventually given that you've heard about it. Did you know that Steve Jobs wasn't the creator of the smart phone? It was actually the US Government that developed the technologies that went into the smartphone. The iPhone wasn't even the first of its kind either. And it was actually Steve Wozniak that was the real brains behind what made Apple relevant. Jobs was a blowhard that took all the credit from everyone else and is one of the biggest frauds in the tech industry that is already full of frauds. Neither copyright or patent law did anything to prevent this.

then why claim that you'll get recognition when you deserve it?

If one believes to be so then yes. The thing about a world where copyright has been abolished is that you are completely free to choose who's version you want to go with or even appreciate all versions if you so choose. If value is subjective, you are free to go with whatever you please. AC was a half-baked product with a decent concept whereas changing a franchise from a stealth action with political intrigue into a zombie survival horror was a really stupid idea in my opinion. The former doubled down on its half-baked ideas with sequels and really needed someone better at the wheel while the latter proved why replacing the original creator with corporate suits was a bad idea in that particular instance.

but that's also going increase the number of half baked ideas in the world and doesn't get rid of the hype culture and marketing campaigns that give the biggest companies the edge. copy right laws aren't responsible for that. how many perfect decent games fall through the cracks cause they don't have the profile? simply being able to use a character is no guarantee of quality as you yourself says. so what does opening it up to anyone actually achieve? hype culture can be used on new ideas and old ideas alike

I'm not sure what point you think you're making here, but these aren't contradictory ideas nor do they contradict abolition of copyright overall.

well if you've seen one series benefit from being taken over by someone else why claim another series will never be as good with out the original creator
Oh and then you say people will get the recognition they deserve while acknowledging the existence of hype culture which detracts from that

Copyright law doesn't speed up the process of recognition or skill improvement either. Let's not go on tangents here because this excessive point by point thing you're doing is getting to be a bit much even for me.

you're the one who brought up recognition

Well, if you're going to completely miss what I was saying you might think that. You are once again conflating two different things here. There is a difference between a hypothetical newcomer having their work stolen by a hypothetical thief with poor value judgement in your hypothetical situation and the reality of billion dollar corporations controlling the distribution and marketing of all media. Context and nuance would obviously matter in different situations so kindly stop taking my answer to one of your points and conflating it with another answer to another one of your points.

no. having your work stolen is a blow no matter who it was done by. all your points are contradictory. small creators having their work stolen shouldn't matter cause they can make something new. cooperations stealing the work of big creators does matter because they can't create something new? that is what you said

It takes lots of capital to get some projects off the ground. While I think the industry needs to get off its obsession with hyperinflated budgets, the reality is that some types of games or genres require more than a one man indie team can handle. I'm not knocking indie games, but there is a reason most of them are simple 2D games. It'd be nice for developers to team up with publishers that can give them those resources without signing over everything of worth to those publishers.

i know that. but it's not the copyright laws that have made it that way. it's the fact that nobody's willing to take a chance on something new

I've already gone into great detail why hording IPs does stagnate creativity. And that's because most dev teams are forced to contract with publishers in order to realize their vision. And when you sign your IP to these guys they're going to have complete control over your creative direction. That's before getting into how these guys control most of the distribution platforms and media airwaves.

but any creative signing up for working for it would be aware of that and would likely be willing to compromise. like i said you don't make new ideas just by letting other people use any idea you want. that's just gonna feed into hype culture with people trying to get attention by using characters with all the hype.

In fact, the internet is pretty much mostly just memes nowadays,

it is? i'm gonna be sick. abandon ship

If your reforms don't address publisher coercion of developers and artists into signing away their IP, they aren't really reforming much. And because coercion is difficult to do anything about, as it is technically voluntary, I don't see any effective reforms that can even be done. You pretty much have to abolish copyright in order to do anything about that.

and how would the abolition of these laws stop them from stealing the ideas anyway? everyone can make a game using a characters face but then what's to stop the companies stealing them all anyway passing them off as theirs and using the vast amounts of money they have to threaten everyone else into silence?

And you do need to do something about that if you actually care about creators keeping their works. I don't know how it can be implied that we need copyright because hypothetical thieves with poor risk/reward management might steal your unknown work, but the robbery in broad daylight by publishers from creators isn't a bigger problem.

i never once said it wasn't a problem but how the abolition of copyright laws stop that. if everyone's free to use everyone's work then the companies can steal all they want

You've been sidestepping this so I'll just ask outright: isn't firing or forcing to resign creators from their own works not a form of stealing by the publisher, even if legal? Wouldn't Kojima, Itagaki, or anyone else that was forced away from their creations, while the publisher continues to make changes to and profits from them, not want their works taken from them and feel bad when it happened? Or is it fine to wrest control of their own works from creators as long as it is technically considered legal?

i have not been. I’m saying the erasure of these laws doesn't stop that from happening

I'm not entirely sure what you're even trying to argue anymore to be honest. I started off by describing how copyright law allows publishers to legally steal IP from their original creators and we've ended up talking about hypothetical thieves that might steal works from newbie creators. Isn't actual stealing happening in real life a little more important than what ifs? I mean, if you're so worried about work being stolen, why not address the stealing that is actually happening from actual creators?

i told you what i was arguing, the abolition of laws doesn't prevent theft of work. legalising plagiarism won't stop big companies from stealing the works of people like kojima. he could make all the MG games he wants, which as far as we know due to not knowing him personally might be 0, what's to stop konami taking all those ideas from him and using hype culture to draw attention away from him. or even actually admit that he was the one who made sell them all that way and never give him any money at all.

if a system i broken you find a way to fix it or you replace it with something that works properly. the problems cause by copyright laws would not be fixed by their erasure, they would still be there.

you don’t protect creators by turning the creative industry into an even bigger free for all than it already is

 

[Quillion]

So someone shared this on the Next Smash speculation a little bit ago:

Random: Elected Official In Japan Is Looking To Legally Preserve Games

And keep them playable for generations to come

www.nintendolife.com

We've got a potential step forward coming.

 

[Quillion]

So this doesn't have much to do with video games, but I just heard of this conflict between Andy Warhol's foundation and this musician photographer over fair use due to some Prince photos and artwork:

The Supreme Court meets Andy Warhol, Prince and a case that could threaten creativity

Images Andy Warhol created of Prince are at the heart of a case the Supreme Court will examine on Wednesday. Warhol used a black-and-white portrait taken by Lynn Goldsmith as a reference point.

www.npr.org

I'll just reiterate that "not for profit" would be a clear and concise thing to add to the fair use definition.

 

[Quillion]

So I'm pretty fond of CalebCity; a very talented YouTube comedy creator. Hadn't paid attention to him for a while, but he put out this video some time ago.

To my surprise, quite a bit of the comments are sympathizing with the "late inventor":

I was telling this to friends years ago when we were talking about how a person can create original ideas. They thought the key was to lock themselves away and work on ideas they never heard of before. I told them that was stupid because what if someone else had already did the idea before or during you being locked away. At that point you're just fooling yourself until you start talking to others. Original ideas today are more of a new "Flavor", rather than a new "Ingredient". New Ingredients can happen but they often happen around the introduction of revolutionary technology leaps.

My memories as a college student just flashes right through my eyes. It's reminded me of how many times my idea got rejected because someone already did it first. It's suck

Kind of happened to me at work. I had an idea for data processing software. I thought it was a good idea, but I was too busy and I thought I had time later to make it. In the meantime, one of my co-workers made it and presented it to the group with great reception. I was annoyed because that could have been my recognition, but fair play. They did it first, so they get the recognition.

He is the greatest asset the company could ever have... wtf? He can just innovate on what exists. Just... hope it doesn't take too long lol. Get the man a team and we heading towards the future.

Pretty accurate and the same thing happened to me. I spent a ton of time composing a song on my guitar. I played it for my mom when the time came and the first thing she said was that it was similar to a song that I have never heard of in my life, clocks by Coldplay. God, I felt so embarrassed that day.

Are attitudes towards originality changing? From these and other reactions on the video, people are seemingly getting annoyed with how originality is valued so much and discouraging collaboration that could lead to better innovation.