[Feba]

Originally Posted by assumedvigilance

this planet is just full of silly bastards isnt it?

yeah

[jwalton]

Originally Posted by Malevolent

Just remember your congress man or woman doesn't care what right or wrong constitutional or unconstitutional.

It's cool, you get as much out of your Congressman or Congresswoman as you put into them. I'd wager the grand majority of people that are "outraged" have never written to their local representative, or even voted for or against the individual. It's easier to whine that the "system doesn't work", and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Feba]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

Without a feasible way to recoup investments of creative time through copyright,

The problem with this entire idea (whether it's yours or not) is that it assumes that the only way that a significant profit can be obtained from artistic works is through copies, which just isn't the case (or at least, isn't anymore).


As to your comparison, it's entirely flawed because mechanical ideas for how or what to manufacture are protected by patents, not copyright. If I have a musical idea (a song), that is covered by copyright, I cannot share it. Take a look at Avril Lavigne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ; and listen to the songs it mentions. There are some very notable similarities; it's hard to say that this isn't an idea, and that she wasn't being sued because a former copyright restricts her from using an idea that someone else has had (be it copied or not)

These sorts of musical similarities aren't even uncommon. For example, listen to Debaser, then Smells Like Teen Spirit, then the Futurama theme. They are all very similar to each other (the SLTS and Futurama is much easier to hear, but Cobain even admitted to SLTS being an attempt at ripping off The Pixies/Debaser. Or for another example, listen to Here Comes Your Man, then Backseat Dog (by the pillows), again, an artist openly takes a cue from The Pixies (specifically, listen to the bassline during the chorus, and the outro lyrics.). Hell, the next song on the album (HAPPY BIVOUAC) is called Kim Deal (Pixies bassist). Yet another example, listen to 25 or 6 to 4, then Walking on the Spiral and Brain Stew; all very similar.

This isn't even touching on the whole Bootie/Mashup scene. Now, I like almost all of the above songs, but obviously they wouldn't be possible if the artists involved exercised their copyright in the way that some have.

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

Removing may be too detrimental to creative works, but there should be more allowances and flexibility in the current system.

I agree. Personally, I think the Creative Commons licenses are best-- they protect an artist's credit (which is the second largest benefit to artistic works, after money of course) and can be made to allow the artist to profit from them, but not others, without all the stupid consumer hassle that copyright in it's current form has (see the thread I posted earlier today for examples)

As for control and usage, I disagree-- look at the GPL; although that really only applies to software, it allows anyone to take, modify, and redistribute the work. Don't like the direction something is heading? Fork it and work on it yourself. Obviously, there's still plenty of incentive for people to make works under it, as it is probably the single most widely used software license. Attribution to all involved authors is of course important, again no argument there.

[Feba]

Like you said, design studios often don't create from scratch. They are paid to combine or apply them to the task at hand.

Photography and artists could easily shift to making their money off commission (as many working at lower levels anyway) instead of by selling prints. I wasn't aware pattern design was a huge field, but given that consumers don't really need patterns (or care if you have one copyrighted), there's no reason why commercial uses can't still contribute to the artist's livelihood.

As to ideas, yes, it very much is an idea. "Hero goes to save the damsel in distress" is a theme, but a Zelda game itself has many ideas, which cannot be reproduced. You're confusing "ideas" with "a quick summary of something" or "the basic idea", and not considering it an idea or a collection of ideas as a whole.

And yes, I realize that they are still making use of copyright, and are simply under different licenses. However, your point was that allowing people to freely use a work, and taking control out of the original author's hands would make people less inclined to produce said works. I was using the fact that people willingly license their works under GPL and encourage others to do the same as proof to the contrary.

[Jaelachan]

Originally Posted by Feba

Explain, exactly, how your copyright wearing off after 50 years is going to harm the artist. And explain how this harm 50 years from now is going to outweigh the benefits to society in general by allowing your materials to be used for educational purposes.


Also, how the hell can you talk about free speech and copyright at the same time? They're practically opposite concepts-- free speech is about being able to speak what you wish, and copyright is about being able to claim you're the first to come up with a certain idea. Hell, look at that HD-DVD key thing, they basically claimed to own *a number*. Considering how all copyrighted works can now be stored in binary form, aside from 3D works such as statues and furniture, that's really all they are.

Removing or weakening copyright protection makes free speech stronger. First of all, it allows ideas to spread more freely, without fear of punishment. Secondly, it doesn't force people to pay to hear opinions and ideas. Third, when the focus shifts from corporations to communities, people can more easily be exposed to literature and things that would never be on display (or even sold) in a store.

Thats called a patent. Not a Copyright.
______________________________

Thematic ideas such as "the hero on a quest to save a damsel in distress" can't be copyrighted, but the stories for Super Mario Brothers and Legend of Zelda can be.

Thats crossing into a whole new river. Intellectual Properties. (IP's for short)