It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
DeadPoolX: If I want to create a science fiction movie and include a galactic empire and several fantasy-based themes, I could say I was inspired by Star Wars. On the other hand, if I took Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knights, lightsabers, and basically copied the plotline from the movies, and used those in my own work, that would be a very obvious violation of copyright (and trademark infringement as well).
Look no further
or...
look here!
Post edited March 24, 2013 by Novotnus
avatar
DeadPoolX: If I want to create a science fiction movie and include a galactic empire and several fantasy-based themes, I could say I was inspired by Star Wars. On the other hand, if I took Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knights, lightsabers, and basically copied the plotline from the movies, and used those in my own work, that would be a very obvious violation of copyright (and trademark infringement as well).
avatar
Novotnus: Look no further
or...
look here!
Yeah, that's a problem with foreign (from a US perspective) media. US copyright law extends only to content created in, made for and sold in the US, and any countries who have legal agreements with it. So while those films you linked to do violate US copyright law, there's very little LucasFilms can do unless the respective governments of those countries wish to cooperate.

It's pretty common to see similar problems with video games, although those issues tend to deal with piracy more than content theft. It's why US video game publishers can't do much to stop overseas piracy unless those governments cooperate with them and US law. Needless to say, there are plenty of governments who don't see eye-to-eye with the US and don't feel like cooperating.
Post edited March 24, 2013 by DeadPoolX

I can't belive you lot are still arguing about copyright, then the arguement at hand is that of DRM vs. Piracy.

I'm sorry I derailed this thread by adding my post in the first fucking place - as many good points as some of you are making, and as relevant and angle to the OP as copyright is, ITS NOT THE FUCKING BONES OF IT!!! the ignorance of this one basic fact is making you all look a bit twatty right now!
Post edited March 24, 2013 by Sachys
avatar
DeadPoolX: Yeah, that's a problem with foreign (from a US perspective) media. US copyright law extends only to content created in, made for and sold in the US, and any countries who have legal agreements with it. So while those films you linked to do violate US copyright law, there's very little LucasFilms can do unless the respective governments of those countries wish to cooperate.
Isn't that publisher's job to prevent such things? If someone was making this kind of rip-off in Poland, I believe Imperial's (polish publisher for 20th Century Fox) people would step in.
avatar
Sachys: ...
Natural flow of discussions which is not restricted by arbitrary text in the original post is one of the reasons why I value these boards. It's no use getting worked up over this, really - if there still was anything to discuss in the topic of DRM vs. Piracy, I'm sure this thread would not get derailed so easily. As it stands, that particular topic was pretty much exhausted completely around here.
avatar
Fenixp:
A fair reply (I've seen many a thread on the subject myself on here), but hopefully you also see my point that its a bit disconcerting to the OP too.

I'm not getting worked up either - so much as just annoyed that these things devolve into his kind of thing even on GOG. Though I'm glad to see the odd reply to the OP too.
What is actually pissing me off are the posters who don't have any undertsanding of copyright / patents / DRM but want their opinion to be held as fact.
When I meet people like that in the pub, it's usually my oversized foot that teaches them otherwise.
Can't do that here dammit!
Heheh!
Heh, I knew I shouldn't have started to argue about this. I just haven't had a good copyright discussion for a while I guess. Had my fill of it before.

I'm still convinced that copyright laws against end-users are bad, copyright on ideas is bad, undecided on whether copyright does any good for the commercial aspect but am strongly leaning towards that it's bad for that too. I think in the absence of copyright, contracts would do a better job in that regard. If there are restrictions in a contract, a beef would be with whoever broke the contract, never an end-user that never signed a contract. Plus, insurance could be bought to help with broken contracts.

For the little guy argument, it reminds me of a discussion I had with a wealthy farmer's son close to my age years ago. He would get teased for being rich by other kids and he would always say that they're not rich (they're not super rich but have plenty). The discussion we had was in our college years about why he was a Democrat and why he favored farm subsidies. It was because he was "for the little guy". Then years after that, I find a website that gives farm subsidy information and I see that 10% of farms collect 75% of the subsidy money. I can look up individuals too and their family is in the top 1% in my area.

The little guys don't get much at all and actually subsidies hurt them because all of that subsidy money frees up other assets so that the big guys can buy up the little guys much easier so now there's mostly only large farms around, each in control of thousands of acres. The little guy is having a harder time. Oh, I forgot, there are people working for these large farms. Silly me. They deserve to be politically favored and receive protection so they can buy up the smaller farms to make more profit for themselves and their employees (some of them used to own land that they are now a hired hand for).

It's not really relevant but I sense a similar situation with copyright. Did the farmer's son really think he was for the little guy or was he just appealing to emotion to cover how much money they were raking in? I'm not accusing anyone of that, it's just something I wondered about that particular person since I know that situation better. It would be interesting to have a website that tracked all the money that Disney, EA, etc. can extort (Robber: He who exacts more than his due) compared to the little guy, and then see if this allows the big guy to easily buy out the little guy. I'm definitely not against companies or individuals making profit, not against large profit either (some might even think excessive) if they earn it with non-coercive, legitimate, voluntary transactions. I'm against legal plunder from the many to give to the few. I think it's even worse than taking from the few to give to the many.

As for the DRM debate, I think it's relevant because DRM and the DMCA do not exist without copyright. Solves the DRM problem right there for me.There might be some kind of DRM for connecting to cloud computing that would still exist, but any unwanted software that was used to try control users' computers would be a waste of money as it could safely be stripped out and would likely be illegal anyway with privacy and private property law without copyright.

Lastly, I never understand why people talk like the ability to copy something so easily is a bad thing and that we need copyright more than ever. It's a good thing. I'm very glad that universities in the late 1400's, 1500's got their own printing presses and ignored copyright. I'm very glad that people moved to Hollywood to ignore Edison's patents.

avatar
KyleKatarn: ...
avatar
Fenixp: Look I ... Think we actually agree here, but utterly misunderstand each other, so let's make it simple: Yes, copyright on an idea is stupid, bad thing that needs to be thrown out of the window. Protection of working solution of that idea is a good thing, as that's something a developer or a team of developers threw a lot of time and effort into, and it should be protected by law as any completed work. If copyright laws get alleviated and somebody comes up with dristgraphaldatatatata laws to protect only the work done, I'm fine with that - I for one would be honored if somebody decided to copy my ideas in the future. Just not steal my work.
Yeah, it looks like we agree on a lot after reading some more of your comments about copyrighting ideas.

I'm not sure I understand how it would work though. This might be the most important question for me to understand what you're trying to say: What do you consider "stealing your work"? I'm not sure how I could use and tweak software or use your idea in my own work if it's copyrighted, even if I'm just making something for a customer for, like maybe a video, without trying to commercialize a product. Do you just want a short copyright length?

avatar
Fenixp: I for one would be honored if somebody decided to copy my ideas in the future.
Imitation is the greatest form of flattery :)

avatar
Fenixp: What I think needs protection is implementation of ideas itself, because... Well, without it, I could just create a piece of freeware software, some could just snatch the executable, give it some promotion and start selling it. That's where copyright is good.
Okay, I think I might be following you. Let me ask another question. In this theoretical situation, why are you making uncompensated freeware software that nobody hired you to make or even asked you to make? If you weren't expecting to get paid for it in the first place, you're still not going to get paid if someone else does try to sell it (which I think would be hard to do without some kind of service to implement or tweak the software for the user). It's still mission accomplished for you. Would you just want people to credit you or only be able to download it from your website because you have ads? Are you just wanting to be philanthropic and want to use copyright to make sure no one pays for the software?

I don't consider freeware free (free speech) either.

avatar
anothername: Ignore them. Exactly what I do these days. Do not "pirate" a game but neither buy almost any new games because of the crapload of other stuff you need to deal with that is not a part of the gameplay.
Well, I think that's better than trying to make them pay but it could also be ignoring a golden opportunity too. Just popping in with a comment to brag about the game and asking people who liked it to visit a website could bring additional income. GOG has a logo at abandonware sites and people will wonder "What's this gog.com?" when they see the installation screen even if they pirate a gog.com game installer. I think we might be surprised how many people who buy games here showed up after pirating a game. I've seen those kind of posts here before. It's kind of brilliant in it's simplicity.
Post edited March 25, 2013 by KyleKatarn
avatar
KyleKatarn: copyright on ideas is bad
You can't copyright ideas. You can't copyright "rebels fight against evil empire in space and are led by a guy with mystic powers", but you can copyright the Star Wars universe, Darth Vader, The Emperor, Tie Fighters, the Death Star and so on. Concrete things, not just ideas. It's also why companies are not looking for "iea guys", they ar elooking for people who can make an actual product. Ideas are worthless, everyone has ideas all the time, only actual products have any value. And that is why copyright is there to protect someone's creative product; protecting a physical product is a simple concept, but creative prodicts require special laws because they are not material objects.