Author Topic: I know  (Read 20085 times)

MWRuger

  • New Efforts # 1,000!
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,117
  • The Devil is in the details! Quick! Get him out!
Re: I know
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2014, 04:18:39 PM »
The difference is that, unless they have changed it, MWM doesn't get exclusive rights to your creation, just within the game world. You could use him in other projects because you still own him.

That is much more fair.
AKA TheDevilYouKnow
Return of CoH - Oh My God! It looks like it can happen!

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: I know
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2014, 04:36:45 PM »
Whereas I tend to think they're less social constructs and more evolved standards based on objectively calculable best-results.

Where we are is a best result, with the copyright term extending to infinity, the farce of software patents, and - well, City of Heroes locked up in NC's cupboard? I think it's pretty clear that lobbying from Big Copyright has moved us a long way from any kind of optimum - even given that the mechanism is artificial scarcity.

Quote
The fact that you never, ever get away from "pay for what you want" and "property belongs first to the guy who makes it"

Every time you pay your taxes you get away from that. Some belongs to you; some goes to the public good. And what better to take, for the public good, than property you aren't using and intend never to sell?

Quote
A man instinctively feels he owns his labor, and will only work best when given something he feels is worth it in return. Theft - through extortion or brute force or guile - can work, but they inevitably diminish the overall productivity of the society in which they happen. Respecting property rights - the right of a man to his labor and the fruits thereof - always leads to an overall increase in the wealth and prosperity of the society and the individuals who make it up.

This sort of platitude does rather neglect the specifics. The cobbler is incentivised to make shoes because they anticipate selling shoes, not in order to lock them in their basement and let them collect dust - and indeed, if they did the latter, we'd gain little by incentivising them to do so. Cryptic were incentivised to create City of Heroes because the law created a structure to take our money for playing it, not by the idea that the law was also going to enable another company entirely to hide it under the mattress and not take anyone's money for it in eight years' time.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: I know
« Reply #42 on: January 24, 2014, 01:41:18 AM »

Every time you pay your taxes you get away from that. Some belongs to you; some goes to the public good. And what better to take, for the public good, than property you aren't using and intend never to sell?



hmmm.

The government already does this from time to time. Usually state, city or county level though.

And even that is a hot subject in the meaning of property rights. As there is already clauses (or similar terms) in the law that allows the government at least to gain stuff and release for the common good. Sometimes a private owned entity or person petitions, like land development rights but there is some old man sitting on a desirable piece that could do good for the community. Some are against even that because it violates the property rights of the old man. Others say, damn right they should take it for the better of the public good.


And sometimes do it with things that are not real estate or land.

The thing though is how to define "for the public good." I think even with the for the public good clause, NCSOSFT would still be able to sit on the IP either way because as enjoyable as a video game is, it probably not enough of a public good to over ride the rights of the owner. And when I say public good I mean as a whole. Because it might be part of the way to help change the laws in cases like that but it will have to be beyond "The copyright and IP laws should be changed because I want my game back."




But IP laws especially digital has grown to be a totally different animal. Unlike many eminent domain laws, Copyright/IP protection have lot of treaties with lot of other countries bound to it. While usurping American companies' IP would be a simple changing of the law. It would be different animal when dealing with foreign companies especially one that is also part of that treaty agreement.

 
Then again, if one can create something and have it taken away because someone else wants it, then what incentive is there to create? I think in the mmo game world, it would have drastic changes on the type of games being made. Companies probably would take risk outside the success formula (fantasy mmo games). Because there would be no protection for a game that do not do as well as they hope and end up either being a money pit to keep it going to end up losing it and everything they put into it. Either way, the risk would be a lose lose situation for the creator. Meaning there if there was laws of the use or lose IP type was in effect in 2000, COX probably wouldn't have ever existed and the choices out there in the game world would have been very slim.

Yeah yeah I know some have mindset of "I don't care about corporations." Which is fine. But then, why should corporations care about the public good of people that do not care about them? Thus leaving them no incentive to look out for any interest but their own, on both sides. So then it boils down influence. Usually corporations will fight cut throat against each other when it comes to business but even they know sometimes they must work together to get laws that favor them to pass. People as a whole haven't gotten that work together part down pack. "But they have billions of dollars". Those billions didn't pop up out of no where. It came from the people whether through buying their goods, or through tax money. Thus the group that works as a team of course have more influence in the law and political realm. Usually when corporate sponsored bills get presented it's usually lays out what they want why they want it and how it will benefit the people (truth or false). People side, it's a mad house. Most of the time they rather fight each other for the spotlight instead of getting it together.  But those times when people do get it together and go with an actual structured purpose, they achieve a lot and sometimes have more pull than any corporation. History have shown.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 01:54:01 AM by JaguarX »

MWRuger

  • New Efforts # 1,000!
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,117
  • The Devil is in the details! Quick! Get him out!
Re: I know
« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2014, 06:07:44 AM »
Corporations DON'T care about he public good. They don't care about art or any kind of intangible unless it helps make more money for the bottom line. That's what they are designed to do and nothing else.

Everything is a calculated PR move to bolster image and protect stock prices. When a corporation does something charitable it is because a person there decided to do it or because with the deduction for charitable contribution and the offset to PR expenses it comes up positive.

A person can appreciate art. A person can sacrifice for another. A person can give a damn about people dying.

A corporation can calculate about how much it might cost to license art. A corporation can determine the cost of a valued employees loss. A corporation can regret the loss of potential customers. That's all.
AKA TheDevilYouKnow
Return of CoH - Oh My God! It looks like it can happen!

Taceus Jiwede

  • Time Traveler
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
Re: I know
« Reply #44 on: January 24, 2014, 08:02:44 AM »
Quote
By including Segev in City of Titans, or Positron in CoH, these characters (would) gain public awareness and appeal. Their value as a branded item increases.

What if you owned Segev before you put him in the game?  Like what if Matt Miller had copyrighted Position before he ever got a job at these companies?  Would they not allow the character in game so they didn't have to pay to use his rights?  What if you put Segev in the game and then didn't ask for money from MVM?  I am just curious if you could use the character in anyway while protecting him as your character.

Ironwolf

  • Stubborn as a
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,503
Re: I know
« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2014, 02:06:24 PM »
Jim Butcher played Harry Dresden in game. He did have to get permission and likely sign a waiver, for use IN the game.

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: I know
« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2014, 02:43:51 PM »
This sort of platitude does rather neglect the specifics. The cobbler is incentivised to make shoes because they anticipate selling shoes, not in order to lock them in their basement and let them collect dust - and indeed, if they did the latter, we'd gain little by incentivising them to do so.
On the contrary: it is quite possible to make the cobbler feel that he should sit on his talents and skills and not make shoes. Simply do not allow him to profit from them.

If he makes shoes that he sells for enormous sums, such that he only has to make a few dozen a year to live a lavish lifestyle, the same arguments that claim NCSoft shouldn't be allowed to "sit" on this IP could be used to say he shouldn't be allowed to "sit" on his shoe-making skills and refuse to make shoes that everybody can afford.

It is worth noting that NCSoft isn't "incentivized" to sit on this IP, either. That they are doing so means we either don't see the profit they expect to make, or that they are irrational. We may gain little by allowing them to do so, but we gain little by allowing that cobbler to keep his shoes in his basement rather than selling them. And yet, if we forcibly took from that cobbler his shoes, other cobblers would realize that they could not choose to whom to sell them and for what price, either, and would feel less incentivized to make shoes.

If we take the IP from NCSoft, what's to stop "us" from taking it from anybody else? When a company cannot count on being able to treat their intellectual property like any other property, they are disincentivized from investing in it.

Cryptic were incentivised to create City of Heroes because the law created a structure to take our money for playing it, not by the idea that the law was also going to enable another company entirely to hide it under the mattress and not take anyone's money for it in eight years' time.
Cryptic may have sold it to NCSoft, but they had reasons for doing so.Without the freedom to do so - without the incentive of that potential for backing, and heck, without the backing from those who have money to support you through your efforts of creating the work - we will see far fewer creative works produced.

Again, NCSoft either sees profit in this - perhaps has plans for using it in some way in their ongoing plans - or NCSoft is being as irrational as the cobbler who suddenly hides away his stock in the basement. There is no incentive for them to sit on it, not in IP law. No more than there is incentive for a cobbler to let shoes gather dust in his basement when people clamor at his door to buy them.

Is our current IP law perfect? No, it isn't. But you ARE advocating post-hoc slavery - or at least theft - when you advocate intellectual property not belonging to its creator (or the person to whom he sold it) if he doesn't distribute it in the way you feel he should.



Now. Regarding NPCs in MWM's products. The legalese behind "you can still use it" is very, very involved. It is not recommended that you give us NPCs that are beloved creations independent of your efforts to work with MWM on our projects. You can, and it is an opportunity to see them enshrined in a game as part of an official canon, but the legal issues are such that you ARE giving up rights to exclusivity.

If you're a pro-Choice type, imagine if I were to get Segev included in the game, but retained full rights to use him however else I chose. I then took all the iconic imagery around him and his nefarious villainy, and used him in a wide-spread real-world campaign comparing abortion to baby-murdering and tying - through the auspices of Segev - the whole project to a pro-life agenda.

If you're a conservative Republican, imagine if somebody's personal hero NPC - Patriotism Man or something - were in the game, but their retention of full rights allowed them to advertise using Patriotism Man for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming elections, and tie the project to that political bent.

We have to be very careful about the rights to anything we include in our game, because we want to be able to control the perception of what the game as a whole represents. While I, personally, would love to see a roughly even split of political, ethical, moral, and other beliefs amongst our NPCs, and enable this to have within the game-world the same sorts of debates that happen in the real one (and maybe milk the darned politicians for some of their campaign funds to support the game), even THAT is risky.

People play these games as a form of escapism. It is generally best if we AVOID bringing real-world politics in, as much as possible. It risks too much painting one viewpoint as "heroic" and the other as "villainous." And while some would doubtless agree with the portrayals, others would be offended.

And because we need to control these associations, and because of even stickier issues of "who does a sponsor approach to use such-and-such NPC?" we need to be very careful about who "owns" and how people can use NPCs.

That doesn't mean there won't be a lot people can do with their NPCs, necessarily. William Shatner appears at Star Trek conventions as "Captain Kirk," still, I believe. I don't know if Paramount gets a cut of that. But you can bet they'd want a cut of anything that "Captain Kirk" appeared in to endorse a product. And the right to say "heck no" if they thought that endorsement damaged their Star Trek property.

MWRuger

  • New Efforts # 1,000!
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,117
  • The Devil is in the details! Quick! Get him out!
Re: I know
« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2014, 05:58:40 PM »
Segev,

The situation that you describe is extremely unlikely to occur. Law and rules should be drafted to address the most likely to occur, not anomalies. I certainly understand why businesses want to tie up everything they can. That doesn't mean it is in the public interest or the interest of the creator. Do you believe that there is never a case where public interest should trump property ownership?

In almost every case of copyright infringement it is about denial of potential to profit. Basically, they didn't get their cut. Very,very seldom is copyright invoked to stop objectionable use. There are defenses for using copyrighted material, in the case of satire for instance or illustration. Courts have held that this is fair use as long as it follows certain guidelines, like length or quote and so forth. Being editorialized as a jackass isn't actionable.

What you are describing is more likely to happen with trademark than copyright. Copyright infringement is pretty specific whereas trademark is very open to interpretation. Unless it is a direct clone, trademarks could be similar but not exact. Further, trademark has to be vigorously defended or the trademark owner runs the risk of forfeiting trademark protection.

Usually, a court has to decide if it gets that far. In most cases though large trademark holders bury the offender in so much paperwork that they give up the fight, whether they infringed or not.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 01:44:02 AM by TheDevilYouKnow »
AKA TheDevilYouKnow
Return of CoH - Oh My God! It looks like it can happen!

ROBOKiTTY

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 183
  • KiTTYRiffic
    • KiTTYLand
Re: I know
« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2014, 10:07:49 PM »
The ideology is strong in this one.
Have you played with a KiTTY today?

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: I know
« Reply #49 on: January 25, 2014, 04:39:09 AM »
On the contrary: it is quite possible to make the cobbler feel that he should sit on his talents and skills and not make shoes. Simply do not allow him to profit from them.

Which is not analogous to the proposal, so I'm not sure why you mention it.

Quote
It is worth noting that NCSoft isn't "incentivized" to sit on this IP, either.

Indeed. The law intended to promote creation, as a side effect, permits damaging actions.

Quote
And yet, if we forcibly took from that cobbler his shoes, other cobblers would realize that they could not choose to whom to sell them and for what price, either, and would feel less incentivized to make shoes.

Well, no, they wouldn't, because taking something that's simply going to waste has no implications for things that are actively being sold.

Quote
If we take the IP from NCSoft, what's to stop "us" from taking it from anybody else?

What indeed? I'm generally in favour of stopping companies sitting on abandoned IP.

Quote
When a company cannot count on being able to treat their intellectual property like any other property, they are disincentivized from investing in it.

This is the same dodge; "any other property" can be, and routinely is, taxed in the public interest. It's not an absolute right either.

Quote
Cryptic may have sold it to NCSoft, but they had reasons for doing so.Without the freedom to do so

A freedom I am not advocating denying them, so again, what's your point?

Quote
But you ARE advocating post-hoc slavery - or at least theft - when you advocate intellectual property not belonging to its creator (or the person to whom he sold it) if he doesn't distribute it in the way you feel he should.

That is pure hyperbole. It would no more be slavery or theft than taxation is.

Joshex

  • [citation needed]
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,027
    • my talk page
Re: I know
« Reply #50 on: January 25, 2014, 02:24:52 PM »
Thinking it over with a clear mind, because the articles I wrote so far deal with products and services, a new line is necessary to distinguish the difference between an artistic work and a product or service.

Simply stated

An Artistic work is the property of it's creator as long as it is fulfilling the creator's original intention for producing it.

will finish later strapped for time atm.
There is always another way. But it might not work exactly like you may desire.

A wise old rabbit once told me "Never give-up!, Trust your instincts!" granted the advice at the time led me on a tripped-out voyage out of an asteroid belt, but hey it was more impressive than a bunch of rocks and space monkies.

Floride

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 863
  • Badgehunter Extraordinaire
Re: I know
« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2014, 03:58:10 AM »
Admittedly, I am dangerous to this discussion because I have a "little bit of knowledge" as pertains to IP. (In all honesty, I know more-than-usual about copyright and next to nothing about IP).
So query me this, those in the know. If I take a work of intelligent property - say, widget.exe - and decompress it and compress it using my own proprietary compression software, is it now a new IP, seeing as how the 1's and 0's and even the file size are all vastly different from the original? Just wondering how specific can IP rights go. I'm not trying to take over Joshex's original them, I've just always wondered about this.
History shows again and again
How nature points out the folly of men

Aggelakis

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,001
Re: I know
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2014, 04:03:59 AM »
widget.exe isn't *all* of the IP - the code that makes up the program is the IP as well. How it's compressed doesn't change the base, uncompressed text/architecture.
Bob Dole!! Bob Dole. Bob Dole! Bob Dole. Bob Dole. Bob Dole... Bob Dole... Bob... Dole...... Bob...


ParagonWiki
OuroPortal

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: I know
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2014, 04:05:23 AM »
widget.exe isn't *all* of the IP - the code that makes up the program is the IP as well. How it's compressed doesn't change the base, uncompressed text/architecture.
this.

Floride

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 863
  • Badgehunter Extraordinaire
Re: I know
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2014, 04:08:20 AM »
Thanks. Now I have more than a little info, so I'm even more dangerous :D
But seriously, thanks guys.
History shows again and again
How nature points out the folly of men

MWRuger

  • New Efforts # 1,000!
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,117
  • The Devil is in the details! Quick! Get him out!
Re: I know
« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2014, 05:34:34 AM »
Admittedly, I am dangerous to this discussion because I have a "little bit of knowledge" as pertains to IP. (In all honesty, I know more-than-usual about copyright and next to nothing about IP).
So query me this, those in the know. If I take a work of intelligent property - say, widget.exe - and decompress it and compress it using my own proprietary compression software, is it now a new IP, seeing as how the 1's and 0's and even the file size are all vastly different from the original? Just wondering how specific can IP rights go. I'm not trying to take over Joshex's original them, I've just always wondered about this.

Compression doesn't actually change the original version. When you compress and decompress the widget.exe, it is essentially the same exact program. A more interesting case is if you take the .exe and recompile it, is that a new program (and no longer protected)?

No, it's not. Because (assuming that it worked at all, which is doubtful) it would still be based on the same source code and if that was protected any compile version from the code would also be protected.

Also, Floride, you have to take into account that whatever opinions are offered non of them really count until a court rules on a specific issue. Essentially, we can talk about precedents from legal cases and look to what past courts have ruled (Sony Fair use case, Apple vs Microsoft) and even though judges are loath to overturn precedents, until it reaches court, a judgement is rendered and all appeals have been exhausted there is no certain way to know what is legal. The law may seem perfectly clear, but there are always variables that have not been considered. If their weren't we wouldn't need judges in the first place.
AKA TheDevilYouKnow
Return of CoH - Oh My God! It looks like it can happen!

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: I know
« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2014, 08:28:28 AM »
Compression doesn't actually change the original version. When you compress and decompress the widget.exe, it is essentially the same exact program. A more interesting case is if you take the .exe and recompile it, is that a new program (and no longer protected)?

No, it's not. Because (assuming that it worked at all, which is doubtful) it would still be based on the same source code and if that was protected any compile version from the code would also be protected.

Also, Floride, you have to take into account that whatever opinions are offered non of them really count until a court rules on a specific issue. Essentially, we can talk about precedents from legal cases and look to what past courts have ruled (Sony Fair use case, Apple vs Microsoft) and even though judges are loath to overturn precedents, until it reaches court, a judgement is rendered and all appeals have been exhausted there is no certain way to know what is legal. The law may seem perfectly clear, but there are always variables that have not been considered. If their weren't we wouldn't need judges in the first place.

Indeed.





"Well you know how they used to slaughter beeves, hit 'em with a maul right here to stun 'em... and then up and slit their throats? Well here Charlie has one trussed up and all set to drain him and the beef comes to. It starts thrashing around, six hundred pounds of very pissed-off livestock if you'll pardon me... Charlie grabs his gun there to shoot the damn thing in the head but what with the swingin' and twistin' it's a glance-shot and ricochets around and comes back hits Charlie in the shoulder. You go see Charlie, he still can't reach up with his right hand for his hat... Point bein', even in the contest between man and steer the issue is not certain. " Ed Tom Bell -No Country for Old Men

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: I know
« Reply #57 on: January 27, 2014, 01:38:04 PM »
As I believe this post has gotten a bit deep into philosophy rather than addressing the topic, I will leave it for those who care, but will refrain from arguing it further in this thread. My apologies to those who may already be annoyed by the digression.
That is pure hyperbole. It would no more be slavery or theft than taxation is.
When taxes are used more on things one does not support than on things one does, it is remarkably akin to theft. Legalized theft, but theft nonetheless. There was this whole revolution fought over "no taxation without representation."

Now, one can argue that he has representation, but the majority is against him. Likewise, however, one can point out that claiming it's perfectly okay to vote to take away everything from one person because he's just one person and can't out-vote the other 100 in his tiny village.

What you're advocating is dictating how somebody must utilize their creative efforts and how their specific property must be disposed of. There's a reason any legitimate taxation takes the form of a fungible good: it is the least onerous and most equal way to take the "share" of government costs from those for whom the government (at least theoretically) works. Imminent Domain is already a much-abused law, and likewise only exists for very extreme cases where enormous public good is being held up by one person attempting to extort or unreasonably block it. And in any justifiable use thereof, many others have already given comparable amounts of property towards that project, and the victims of Imminent Domain are the lone hold-out.

Any time Imminent Domain has been used to force single property-holders to turn over specific property where few to no others were required to, it is being abused. (And this is usually only the case when it's abused for such things as a Wal*Mart being 'good for taxes' so another store has to give up its land to Wal*Mart. As happened to a Saturn dealership a decade or so ago near where I grew up.)

Nobody has a right to property created or bought by another, outside of bankruptcy. His heirs inherit because of his right to choose disposition of his property.

Taxes are monetary because it's the least invasive form of legitemized theft: it takes a wholly replaceable good - that is, something fungible - rather than something that, even if he labored just as hard for ten times as long, he might never be able to replicate or replace.

MWRuger

  • New Efforts # 1,000!
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,117
  • The Devil is in the details! Quick! Get him out!
Re: I know
« Reply #58 on: January 27, 2014, 09:44:08 PM »
It's cool I think. Nobody got nasty and it was a pretty good discussion about IP, copyright, trademark and corporate media holders.

Pretty hard to talk about this stuff without some discussion of public vs private rights and how they intersect with the law and politics, since they are inextricably bound together. If we can't rationally discuss the philosophical underpinnings or our society, government and world we will be left with nothing but the most powerful saying "Because I can, that's way!" I can't beleive that any thoughtful person, right or left, would envision that as a pleasant world to live in.

If reasonable people can not discuss our problems and beliefs, how will we ever find common ground?
AKA TheDevilYouKnow
Return of CoH - Oh My God! It looks like it can happen!

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: I know
« Reply #59 on: January 28, 2014, 12:34:27 AM »
It's cool I think. Nobody got nasty and it was a pretty good discussion about IP, copyright, trademark and corporate media holders.

Pretty hard to talk about this stuff without some discussion of public vs private rights and how they intersect with the law and politics, since they are inextricably bound together. If we can't rationally discuss the philosophical underpinnings or our society, government and world we will be left with nothing but the most powerful saying "Because I can, that's way!" I can't beleive that any thoughtful person, right or left, would envision that as a pleasant world to live in.

If reasonable people can not discuss our problems and beliefs, how will we ever find common ground?
truth