Why the draconian copyright restrictions?

[jester]

..since the people having power over inventors and coporations ...(as opposed to the other way around) is a necesary aspect of a democracy.

 

I strongly disagree. Society should limit certain aspects of research and markets, but I don't trust 'the people' any farther than I can throw them and I am not Minsc.

 

As for natural rights: Protected by democracy? Think again. Hitler won a democratic election. Democracy is a shaky concept at best.See how a republican congress checks on a republican congress backed up by a republican supreme court.

[Borsook]

..since the people having power over inventors and coporations ...(as opposed to the other way around) is a necesary aspect of a democracy.

 

I strongly disagree. Society should limit certain aspects of research and markets, but I don't trust 'the people' any farther than I can throw them and I am not Minsc.

 

As for natural rights: Protected by democracy? Think again. Hitler won a democratic election. Democracy is a shaky concept at best.See how a republican congress checks on a republican congress backed up by a republican supreme court.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trouble with democracy is that most countries (e.g. USA) that claim to use this system use in fact its very strange and in principle "undemocratic" variant. As for Hitler not only did he win, but also he didn't "cheat the voters" or anything he's one of the few politicians in mankind history who fulfilled his pre-election promisses.

[Orions_Stardom]

You truly think that optional payments would work? Sorry, but no.  There's this pesky little thing called human nature, and it means relying on the good naturedness of the species is just nieve.  The general public are just as selfish, greedy and money hoarding as the publishers - if not even more so.  At best you could expect 1/500 people to actually donate any money, and that's an optimistic figure.

Sure, some people wouldn't pay - but some people wouldn't pay for it if it were strongly copyrighted, either. We can't effectively measure the effect in either case (any survey done on it would be flawed by nature), and so we can only speculate on what would happen. You will notice that in general it isn't the *artists* but the *middle men* who push for stronger copyright - which isn't because artists don't have a voice (they most certainly do), but more I think because the artists don't want that. Who's wishes are more important - the artists combined with the users, or RIAA?

Don't forget, copyright also has technical problems: do you realy want all of the files on your computer stored under a key-cryptography where you don't have any access to the keys? DRM, the only technical way of enforcing copyright, has far more potential than lessened restrictions to throw us back into the dark ages, since you could only share knowledge or have an opinion (atleast, electronically) at Microsoft's pleasure.

 

I'm afraid that myth got debunked three decades ago .  The more you use a CD, the greater the chance it'll get scratched or dirty.  Sure it's possible to repair/clean the CD, but there is a limit to how many times it can be done.  Oh, and let's not forget that a large number of CD and DVD players can't play copied CDs/DVDs, so huge numbers of people would go out and buy a legitimate product, only to find they can't even use it.

Which is actually a reason to support copying it (and one of the reasons RIAA don't support even making a backup copy) - if you make a copy, and use a copy only, and put the original up safe, the original is extrmely unlikely to be scratched. Also, the reason a number of players don't play copied CDs is because RIAA insists on it, and says that every burned copy simply *must* be illegal - they thus try use their power to force other companies to make defective products.

 

Sorry, but changing copyright so that authors can no longer make a living from their own work and are forced to get different jobs, or so they decide to stop publically releasing their work... that's affecting authors far more than it's affecting users.

And that isn't my intention at all - infact, the only people who this would put completely out of business in the long run are hopefully 1) RIAA (who would no longer be necesary), and 2) Those people who make a living from crappy music.

[Domi]

O, good gods. There are enough people trying to enforce others to comply with their ideas of how a mod should be made, now there is one who thinks he has a high moral ground to make people work not only for free but also anonimously. Modding is unpaid work. By telling me that I should not retain the ownership of the final product you are effectively making me a slave: an unpaid worker who does not own the produce of her hands; obviously nobody captured me and beat me into writing/coding, so since the product is my final reward for which I worked, and it is not acknowledged as mine publically, well, then I honestly see no reason to continue making my work public.

[CamDawg]

As for natural rights: Protected by democracy? Think again. Hitler won a democratic election.

Uh-oh, move along folks. Godwin's Law has been invoked.

[jester]

I am not sure what you mean by that, but it is one of the most striking examples of a possible hiccup when it comes to democracy.

 

Other than that I have no trouble continuing along the things Domi said. No worries!

 

EDIT: After reading the link I must concede that this is a very funny law indeed and would be true, if it had anything to do with my argument being outrageous or discriminating, but it is clearly just a tiny remark about the validity of the voting process and has nothing to do with anything else, but the fact that he got elected. Also I grew tired of Florida and Ohio anyway.

 

Also from this page:

However, as noted, the exceptions to Godwin's Law are when Hitler is invoked in a positivist manner (i.e. objective facts) that does not have a normative dimension and is therefore permitted.

 

I still stand by my claim that code as such cannot be protected when available to the public. Creative writing is something different as there is no inherent hierarchy of utility involved.

[Borsook]

Hmm does anyone else feel that the word "work" does not go well with "modding" it should be something like.... "pleasure"?

[Kulyok]

Hmm does anyone else feel that the word "work" does not go well with "modding" it should be something like.... "pleasure"?

 

Pleasure, yes. Great pleasure, in fact. But what pleasure is there for me to have my lovingly and carefully planned writings stolen? For the thief, yes, there is pleasure, I do not doubt. But for me?

[Domi]

First, work can and must be pleasurable, or a person is better off by quitting it and finding a new one. Granted, not all can afford it, but ideally it *is* how it should be.

 

Treating modding as pure pleasure would be a mistake.

 

Some things are clearly a lot of fun - writing the dialogues that are coming from the heart, interesting dialogue, exploring new themes. On the other hand, writing can be painful as well, and in some occasions boring - 'classical' interjections or flirtpacks for example are boring for me.

 

Coding challenges afford interesting puzzles. But transferring hundreds of pages of the written text in D format - I doubt anyone could find it inspirational, or testing and retesting to make sure all of the changes are in; playing through the game, looking for the places for a character to interject...

 

My husband calls modding my second job, and he stopped using 'joking' tone about a year ago. I tend to agree with him. What gives me pleasure is playing the game with the modded content tuned to my desires. Preparing the game to reach this state is work to which I give anywhere from 20 to 40 hours each week, steadily and determinedly.

 

So, I agree with Kulyok whole-heartedly - it is not fun when someone calls for the right to steals the results of your labors out of the spiritually high regards. Not fun at all.

[Orions_Stardom]

Pleasure, yes. Great pleasure, in fact. But what pleasure is there for me to have my lovingly and carefully planned writings stolen? For the thief, yes, there is pleasure, I do not doubt. But for me?

For me to have stolen something from you implies that I now have it, and you do not. Otherwise, there is no damage to you. Copying someware doesn't do that - it is possible for us both to have it. Again from gnu.org:

Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about whether it is right to take an object away from someone else. They don't directly apply to making a copy of something. But the owners ask us to apply them anyway.

...

When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which? The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.

 

But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.

[Orions_Stardom]

now there is one who thinks he has a high moral ground to make people work not only for free but also anonimously.

I do no such thing. I'm not pushing for allowing uncredited copying, or unpaid work. Just my freedoms. I admit the term 'free software' is a little misguiding, since "free" is ambiguous - to put it another way, and borrow words from another language,, what I'm pushing for (and what people like RMS are *realy* pushing for) is software libre, not n ecesarily software gratis.

 

Modding is unpaid work.

That isn't necesarily true - in practice, and in this community, it is definately acurate, but modding is not by definition unpaid. There is, literally, nothing stopping you from charging for your work - except for the competitive rates, ofcourse

 

By telling me that I should not retain the ownership of the final product you are effectively making me a slave: an unpaid worker who does not own the produce of her hands; obviously nobody captured me and beat me into writing/coding, so since the product is my final reward for which I worked,  and it is not acknowledged as mine publically, well, then I honestly see no reason to continue making my work public.

I have said before that I fully support efforts to have work attributed to it's author - that is benificial for everyone except those who want to say they wrote it (and I have little tolerance for liars). Also, what I'm saying (or, atleast, trying to say) isn't "you should waive ownership of what you wrote", but rather "I don't believe the concept of ownership truly applies here".

[Domi]

Oh, goody, so you after all agree, that giving a credit might just be possible - it's your SHakespearian parrallel that made me think otherwise.

 

Mods are free to use; you are welcome to change what you wish for your own use without consulting with an author; if you wish a publicly released alteration, suggest/ask a permission from the author. If you do not like how a particular subject is treated - make your own mod. The *one and only* thing an author humbly beggs for is that her work is not changed and publically re-released without her conscent or misattributed.

 

How is that 'draconian' is a mystery to me! It looks friendly, mild and reasonable to both the user and the author.

 

All the king's horses and all the king's men are wasted on me, the moment I see in my mind someone scribing in: "What is your favorite movie, Kivan?" into a "Totally Cool Modern Immersion Project" (based on Domi's writing) - and you know what? I had been through it, and I had been CREDITED for writing something like that I did not do without my knowledge or conscent. Once. ONCE. Once was enough.

 

Yes, I have done a somewhat similar thing with a parody of the Modding Wars at the Studios. But I did not offer it for a public download when the author whose materials I used gave me a big, horrified and descisive "No!" And I still feel terribly guilty about doing it in the first place.

 

I am a devout fan-fictioner, and GRR Martin is my favorite author who had created my favorite world. Yet, since GRR Martin explicitely asked for no fan-fiction to be made for his books, I didn't ever try to write stories about Jaime. No matter how much I perhaps wanted to...

 

And I like it that way, even if I don't get what I wish, because I feel that what I do (not) do is ethical.

[Borsook]

Oh, goody, so you after all agree, that giving a credit might just be possible - it's your SHakespearian parrallel that made me think otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was I who talked about Shakespeare, I said it because someone here said that if we allow total freedom of using others work without credit then we're back to pre-renaissance time, I used the example to point out that in renaissance nobody even thought about such a strange and bizzare concept as author rights. The french invented that much later. So, it was just straighting things out not as anything else.

 

BTW For me modding is a pleasure and work is a tedious torment I'm forced to do to stuff my substanciall belly full, should the work be a pleasure also I wouldn't thought of it as work... Hmm, work being also a pleasure... strange, what will people think of next?

[Guest Guest]

I contend that copyright notices are a load of rubbish not because they have the wrong idea, but because their impact is around 0. I don't avoid redistributing Blonde Imoen because I'm terrified of being sued-- I avoid distributing it because that would make me a dick. Similarly, if somebody redistributes D0Tweak, I'll be angry, but I'm not going to call up my extensive copyright provisions in court because I simply can't be fucked. If and when I produce something that might make millions, I'll plaster copyright all over it. Until then, no thanks.

 

PS. WHEN DID THIS STOP BEING A HOBBY LOL

[Ghreyfain]

Hey, I haven't been reading this thread at all, but I thought I'd share an amusing anecdote.

 

It was back when I played Warcraft 2 a lot, and had created a campaign for it using the map editor. If I do say so myself, it was far and above one of the best there was (at least on the site I uploaded it to). Anyways, some guy came along and e-mailed me about how he liked my work, and suggested we should collaborate on a campaign. I expressed interest, and asked him what he had planned.

 

He told me details of his plot and stuff, which I read and thought "Wait, one of the other awesome-level campaigns available for download has the same exact plot." Then he showed me some maps as examples of what kind of work he could do. They were my maps, with the terrain-set changed (which could be done by flicking a switch), and the starting units in different spots/quantities.

 

I told him to fuck himself. And that's my copyright infringement story.

 

Oh, oh, and once upon a time, I also bought a CD full of like 200 or so Warcraft 2 maps, thinking they were officially endorsed by Blizzard, but it turns out it was just a collection of incredibly lame maps created by some random schmoe. An example from the IE would be if someone created hundreds of overpowered insta-kill items or permanent improved alacrity, and made them available on CD. And you had to CLUA them into your game.

 

Imagine if we could sell our stuff, and someone thought they were getting BioWare-level quality, but wound up with TDD. Or imagine if someone was making a CD of mods for sale (assuming BioWare let them do so), and they used our mods without permission. That little copyright bit is the "go fuck yourself" thing you want.

 

Edit: Oh, oh, and I won my copy of the expansion set in a level-creation contest on MSN. I was just that good. Heheh. In reality, I think there were ten winners out of a couple hundred entries? Something like that.