Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Your Opinions on Length of Copyright

Author
Message
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 7th May 2012 22:17 Edited at: 7th May 2012 22:19
Link
Was thinking about lengths of copyright here in the US (something like the lifetime of the Holder or 100 years). What brought it about is that my Youtube playlists (with songs older than 20 years mostly) keep getting screwed up with deleted songs and advertisements. It really irks me that they're so long in this entertainment obsessed society - if your work is good you'll make your investment back fairly quickly. If we were back in the 18th or 19th Centuries where mass communication and easy distribution weren't available, along with a lack of such high entertainment obsession, it might be a different story. Seems gov't is a bit slow to catch up with the times. I'm sure most of the opinions here, since this is a game centered site, will lean more toward infinite copyright terms. But who knows, I might be surprised!

I'd like to see it knocked down to around 20 years or so for just about everything other than books (which usually don't have an "instant" ROI).

What are your thoughts?

Edit: ah yes, and before anyone says "just buy the music and you won't need to worry about it"...I do own the CDs/MP3s, but I can't even BRING CDs or electronic devices into my work center...so that's where Youtube comes in.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Kevin Picone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posted: 7th May 2012 22:43 Edited at: 7th May 2012 22:44
Link
If said song(s) have value to you 20+ years after release, why should they cease to have value to the owner ?


Mobile Platforms Are Coming
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 7th May 2012 23:11
Link
The same could be argued for patents. Why should a patent owner have their rights taken from them in the name of "greater good of society"? Both copyrights and patents cover property, whether a physical invention or idea. As both are property, why should two different standards apply?

Wouldn't the "greater good of society" also be served by letting copyrights expire after 20 years...after all, artists (well the recording companies) have a monopoly on their works and can charge what the market will bear for them.

Not that I agree with any of that "greater good" nonsense, but I'm playing the devil's advocate here because you have two forms of property treated differently.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 7th May 2012 23:47
Link
Frankly your view point is from a consumer side...

Perhaps try creating something first?

Or use royalty free media and you should have no issues...

Back to top
Profile PM
Kezzla
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2008
Location: Where beer does flow and men chunder
Posted: 8th May 2012 00:49
Link
I personally think copyright expiry should be determined by the creator. if they want to restrict it for a thousands years then that should be the expiry. though they'd have a little trouble enforcing it from beyond the grave.

most people are pretty good with fair use of products. eg I dont care what people do with my music or art for amusement or sharing. its only if they are earning money from my product that I would crack it and call copyright.

why should my hard work become a blank cheque for people just because it was written 20 years ago?

Sometimes I like to use words out of contents
Back to top
Profile PM
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 8th May 2012 02:57 Edited at: 8th May 2012 03:07
Link
Quote: "most people are pretty good with fair use of products. eg I dont care what people do with my music or art for amusement or sharing. its only if they are earning money from my product that I would crack it and call copyright."

This is actually very uncommon unless the artist is an unknown and unsigned.Though some artists may give some of their work freely they usually do so to encourage sales of other product or raise their profile. You will find there are other reasons why an artist may not want you using their product freely other than monetary, they don't for instance like their work used in films or media which are morally dubious.

You also have the issue of ownership, for example a musician seldom owns the mechanical rights to their recordings, the score and lyrics are theirs but the actual recording usually belongs to the publishers so its not the artist that tells you to stop using their stuff on you tube. You need to differentiate between ownership before you accuse artists of spoiling your video by demanding the music be removed from it.

Now I do kind of agree that the artist should decide when a copyright expires its their business and they may want to pass this down as inheritance to their children or whatever in the same way that you can pass your business down to whomever you please when you call it a company, if you want to sell it then fine but if you want to keep it in the family so to speak why shouldn't you?

I always despised the way Michael Jackson bought over all the rights to the Beatles songs, now I am not sure but I believe that when he bought these rights they fell into a different category of ownership and I doubt the rights would expire in the same way as intellectual rights do for the artist as they become a business asset once purchased, there's something not right with that.

If its the case as above then artists should be looking to 'sell' their work to whomever they want to own it for a buck and call it a business transaction I dont see how the 'once your gone what do you care' attitude towards someones talent in an aesthetic sense should apply,an invention which could benefit people overall has more protection than that because its...well...a business asset.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dar13
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 8th May 2012 03:02
Link
Personally, I think it should be up to author of the work but with a maximum of 30 years. That way, both sides of the coin are satisfied while the maximalists have an upper bound so that all works will eventually reach the public domain within a reasonable time period.

That's from my viewpoint as a creator, and from my viewpoint as a consumer.

Follow WTLD's progress on Twitter
Git repository for WasTeLanD
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 8th May 2012 03:11
Link
Yes the.case of monetory gain kicks in...

Some thungs take time to be appreciated I know some examples of this exist just can not bring them to mind right now...

Personally speaking... If nobody remains to pickup the cash then give it to the public domain.... But until then... Keep it locked...

But yeah control over usage should be kept as mentioned before... There is a good and a vad way to use others material... Sometimes people associate SUPPORT where it is not meant...

In short if your music was places in an evil video some simpletons will give you a dim view...

Back to top
Profile PM
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 8th May 2012 03:16 Edited at: 8th May 2012 03:24
Link
If its sold commercially then its in the public domain, so to speak, if you believe that 'public domain' should mean 'free to use however you please' then you need to respect the artists beliefs and wishes whether religious, moral, ethical, whatever and that seldom happens to be the case. If you believe in that then you cant expect to put a maximum of thirty years on something as the artist then has no say in how their work is used within their lifetime, my own opinion is that it would have the potential to be very damaging to individuals who have their work used in ways that they simply don't agree with and then have no recourse to stop it.

If you believe that freely releasing something will get it 'out there' and into the hands of more people over 'sales with the advertising and exposure that goes with throwing some money at it' then your wrong, it costs money to make something known, I know there have been exceptions , but mostly this is very rare, you will find that the most sought after product is the one that costs something and free means cheap in the eyes of our capitalistic society of today.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dar13
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 8th May 2012 03:39
Link
Quote: "if you believe that 'public domain' should mean 'free to use however you please'"

It's not a belief, it's the definition of the public domain(in the U.S. anyways).

Quote: "the artist then has no say in how their work is used within their lifetime, my own opinion is that it would have the potential to be very damaging to individuals who have their work used in ways that they simply don't agree with and then have no recourse to stop it"

So, basically, the maybe protection of the few versus the possible benefits of the many?
I mean yeah it would suck if my game was modified to be a terrorist training simulator, but I was not the creator of that derivative of my game. I created the base game, but the specific creation was made by the terrorists, not me, the original author.

Follow WTLD's progress on Twitter
Git repository for WasTeLanD
Back to top
Profile PM Email
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 8th May 2012 04:10 Edited at: 8th May 2012 04:14
Link
Quote: "So, basically, the maybe protection of the few versus the possible benefits of the many? "

I dont know exactly what you mean by this....of what benefit to the many would the release into the public domain of the collection by The Stones or any other major artist who continue to earn money from their art,which they are entitled to do...its their job.
I actually dont see how allowing anyone to use your recorded music in any way they please would benefit anyone, if you mean education then its already in place.

I have heard many inferior artists murdering a song they didnt write, in fact if you want to cover a song it will cost about 12 bucks for the rights to it provided you expect sales to be less than 3000 or so units. As I said above the mechanical rights are owned by the publishers and thats a business so dont expect these recordings to enter the public domain simply cos the artist is no longer around, if you want to put out your own little midi tune using the score of a beatles song feel free to do so but you cant use the commercial recordings.

I wouldnt compare my own art to the major artists in this way, its a different story when it provides jobs and income for a lot of different people not just the creator. This is a point missed by those who believe classical music is free to use, only the score is, the 'Philharmonic Orchestral' recording of it isn't free to use as you please. This is also the reason many art galleries wont allow you to photograph certain paintings they own the print rights and dont want anyone just snapping them and making their own.

I doubt your game will be used to create a terrorist simulation,but you might have a different opinion on it being made free after a certain period of time if it were making decent income for you. I am not downing you but we are not anywhere near the same league so I cant compare your art or mine to major artists, which is what I am talking about, I just dont believe they should lose the rights to their creations based on a time limit as its their business and how they earn their living.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dar13
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 8th May 2012 04:35
Link
Quote: "I dont know exactly what you mean by this"

You said that any modifiers of the work should abide by the wishes of the creator of that work for the author's lifetime. That protects the author from any use of his/her work that might reflect against him negatively, but also restricts the use of the work from being used in any way not approved by the author. Thus, a repurposing or reimagining of that work that might better benefit the greater society is rendered impossible by a man/woman who might have created the work 50 years ago. That's what I meant.

Quote: "I doubt your game will be used to create a terrorist simulation"

So do I. I used that as a hypothetical situation.

Quote: "you might have a different opinion on it being made free after a certain period of time if it were making decent income for you."

If a single piece of art can sustain an artist or author for 30 years, that's a spectacular piece of art. You seem to be thinking that I'm saying that an artist has no right to profit off his work after a certain amount of time. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that the vast majority of all copyrighted works(somewhere around 90% or higher) cease to be productive for their creator. Why should they be locked up in some intellectual property vault for up to some 70 years(saying the author is 20 when work is made, and lives to be at least 90) or, even worse, locked up in some corporation's vault for up to 140(!) years in accordance with today's laws?(work made when author is 20, lives to be 90, plus 70 years due to Ozzie Extension) Perhaps 50 years would be better, to better accommodate more 'timeless' pieces of art such as classical music or paintings and to truly ensure that the overwhelming majority of creators don't benefit substantially from that piece of art.

Follow WTLD's progress on Twitter
Git repository for WasTeLanD
Back to top
Profile PM Email
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 8th May 2012 05:01
Link
Quote: "That protects the author from any use of his/her work that might reflect against him negatively, but also restricts the use of the work from being used in any way not approved by the author."

Not only that, you see its highly unlikely that anyone would remaster and release large quantities of Stones recordings for free, though as we know it would mean digital release by anyone who wishes to do so via free download, now lets say that by some incredible chance the Stones were still recording and performing their songs and still living off income from past releases (I know...I am just kidding) why should they lose that income because people feel their recordings should be free?
You also have to realize that though the bands cut from sales is small it mounts up when millions are sold every year.


As for usage, I can say unequivocally I do not want anything I do to be used in porn movies,political campaigns and I certainly dont want it used to promote Chester Chicken's without them having to pay me, am I asking too much?

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Back to top
Profile PM
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 8th May 2012 08:48
Link
Quote: "Frankly your view point is from a consumer side...

Perhaps try creating something first?"


Thanks...I do create material which can be covered under copyright...circuit board layouts and user manuals.

My position is from both views and still holds.

The bottom line for me is that inventions and works of "art" need to be protected on one hand but also don't need to be locked down forever on the other.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 8th May 2012 08:53
Link
even so though I agree some people mustnt keep progressive secrets [such as that guy who made indestructable plastics in the 80's or something his family probably still knows it but...] a secret fromt he public as it could have made life so much more better...

Generally speaking music and software... is essentially a business asset once you create it... they are thus governeable under business LAW not public LAW if that makes sense...

also by public I did not mean AVAILABLE TO USE, I meant AVAILABLE TO REPRODUCE

Back to top
Profile PM
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 8th May 2012 09:08
Link
Quote: "some people mustnt keep progressive secrets [such as that guy who made indestructable plastics in the 80's or something his family probably still knows it but...] a secret fromt he public as it could have made life so much more better..."


Ahhh, and we *seem* to have arrived at the typical stance of most programming/game forums I've lurked around. Patents should be subject to the "the greater good" while works of art should be protected, by nuclear weapons if necessary. Would not the "greater good" also be served by forcing companies who no longer sell a piece of software to place it in the public domain? I have a few software tools I use but unfortunately discovered after the companies no longer offered them. I'd gladly pay to use them and tried the new versions but didn't like them.

If the excuse for short patents is to create competition, improvements, &&c shouldn't software tools should fall under patents rather than copyright?

Quote: "Generally speaking music and software... is essentially a business asset once you create it"


Are you trying to say that Intel's newest patented manufacturing processes aren't a business asset?

This is an interesting discussion

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 8th May 2012 09:17 Edited at: 8th May 2012 09:18
Link
well... I agree with that when a company discontinues their software it should all be made freely available.... [not the source code unless its open source of course]...

well, AMD has the same going I am pretty sure...

some things are open some are closed... its essentially down to the creator... [sometimes not...]

EDIT

I need food...

forgot to add

Quote: "This is an interesting discussion "

indeed

Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 8th May 2012 12:09 Edited at: 8th May 2012 12:11
Link
Quote: "I dont know exactly what you mean by this....of what benefit to the many would the release into the public domain of the collection by The Stones or any other major artist who continue to earn money from their art,which they are entitled to do...its their job.
I actually dont see how allowing anyone to use your recorded music in any way they please would benefit anyone, if you mean education then its already in place."


Long link:


darkBIT TGC Torrent Tracker / File Server - AGK Chat: #agk : irc.devhat.net
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 8th May 2012 12:27
Link
Nice find Jerico

Back to top
Profile PM
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 9th May 2012 01:09
Link
I think the copyright owner should choose... Points.

Oh wait this isnt the posting compo...

wë¡·sEæ
Back to top
Profile PM Website
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 9th May 2012 02:05
Link
Walks over to DBD79 and holds his hand up to his face...

FACEPALM

...

Back to top
Profile PM
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 9th May 2012 02:08
Link
[u][/u]

wë¡·sEæ
Back to top
Profile PM Website
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 9th May 2012 21:53
Link
Generally speaking, I think it should be...

Copyright Simplified:

Music: 30 years
Movies: 30 years
Software 15 years
Other: I don't have an opinion on that.

Why???

Music
After 30 years, music has gone through its peak, the artists got their money (No wait, the label took the artists' money and gave them some tidbits) so basically it's not really making enough for it to be considered worth keeping chained up. If it didn't make it big, well, bad luck old chum - I speak from the POV of a creator btw.

Movies:
America love their old classics sure (I think the UK do too, to a degree) but once it's made its box offic hit of flop and gone onto DVD, hype and sales begin to decrease. 30 years later, I doubt the artists will still be benefitting and if they are then why should they. We don't go to work for a month and then live off our salaries our whole lives (most of us). I don't think the money a movie makes in its golden years justifies depriving people of it.

Software:
Well duh, coz only a tiny percent of people (hobbiyists etc) use dated software. Lots of dated stuff doesn't even run correctly anymore and many console games don't even have easily available hardware to play them on (or store them on in the case of C64/ATARI/NES/SNES/N64?GENESIS/...etc ). The software issue I feel the most strongly about because I see rom sites shut down all the time and as a retro-gamer, I love my old roms (many of which I own the cartridges for btw).

...Of course there's a flaw in my logic:

If that system were in place, people would just wait until the stuff was free, wouldn't they? Imagine a world that was technologically 15 years ahead of its consumers. Wow. Total dysstopia!

No, wait...

Nobody would wait 15 years for something. In today's world, people camp outside for the new Harry Pothead/Stupid Vampires book. In fact the rich get off on being the first to own it while fans can't wait for the next sequel.

So in actuality, it should work...at least in theory. The world would prolly cave in on itself under that system

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 9th May 2012 22:14
Link
I agree with you nonZero... however softwares usually carry patented coding etc... or Technologies as they call it...

how about this? I suppose you could say it falls under the Patent war

Back to top
Profile PM
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 9th May 2012 23:03
Link
Quote: "(No wait, the label took the artists' money and gave them some tidbits)"


Really? Come on, get out of the vacuum of the college mentality and into the real world mentality. Companies (as much as I dislike them), unlike other large entities which will remain unmentioned, don't go to artists and demand their property at the point of a gun. Artists sign contracts, like everyone else. If you don't like the terms, then don't sign the BLEEP-ing contract. This is the main reason I want no part of a gaming company in my project, assuming it ever catches the attention of a large company.

Quote: "...I doubt the artists will still be benefitting and if they are then why should they."


Well...here in the US at least, inventions\arts are considered property, hence "intellectual property". Unfortunately I'm going to have to go on the defense of musicians\artists on this one. My opinions in previous posts notwithstanding...being property, why shouldn't the artist benefit from their property even if it's 80 years from when they made it? Now...here in the US IP is given special privileges from gov't through copyright/patent laws. Being a privilege from gov't rather than an inherent right, it can be altered or revoked at any time. (My fellow people with gov't of British origin will get this last part, others may not due to differences in their countries in gov't vs. individual)

Quote: "In today's world, people camp outside for the new Harry Pothead/Stupid Vampires book."


Yeah, it's like that for anything entertainment related. Society is going down the tubes, but I won't start on that.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 9th May 2012 23:24
Link
Quote: "why shouldn't the artist benefit from their property even if it's 80 years from when they made it?"


Last time i checked, its 80 years after death of the artist.


The result of origin.. Oh and ponies
Back to top
Profile PM
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 9th May 2012 23:28
Link
Quote: "Last time i checked, its 80 years after death of the artist."


I wasn't quoting any law. It was a response to the "why should they?" question of the item I quoted. Maybe this is better?

Why shouldn't an artist benefit at 100 from property they made when they were 20?

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 9th May 2012 23:51
Link
Well, offcourse they should - Copyright should stay UNTIL you die, after that you no longer need ANY profit form it..


The result of origin.. Oh and ponies
Back to top
Profile PM
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 10th May 2012 00:58
Link
@Nateholio:
Quote: "Really? Come on, get out of the vacuum of
the college mentality and into the real world
mentality."


Sadly, I live too much in the real world as it stands... But on a serious note, you're taking a lotta what I say outta context. What I mean is that:
Fact - artists lose lots of profit because labels take a lot. Labels also harm consumers by price-hiking. Until recent times, publishers have dominated the market. Modern communication makes these middlemen obselete, I know, but when many signed these deals it may just as well have been at gunpoint as their futures were on the line. Add that to the fact the contracts are intentionally made confusing and you get the "used car salesman scenario".

About what I said "why should the artist benefit 30 years down the line" I simply meant "why should it be enforced?" ie the album should still be sold and the artist should still get his royalties but I think that people should be allowed to make personal use of that material gratis. So I'm not saying take the artists' rights away, I'm saying after 30 years, give the poor guy in a 3rd world country some stuff that he doesn't gotta pay for, it harms nobody really.

@MrValentine:
Yeah, it's patent wars. I'm sure if they could someone would patent the wheel

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dar13
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 10th May 2012 02:34
Link
Quote: "here in the US at least, inventions\arts are considered property"

I don't see why an invention, or rather the idea behind the invention, is considered property worthy of special protection for so long. Especially in the case of software patents, the system is abused to protect a company from disruptive competition(Yahoo v. Facebook or Apple v. Samsung[the patent nuclear war]). 20 years these days is forever. Only the specific implementation of an inventive idea(actual proof of product, none of these 'theoretical' patents) should be allowed, and for a shorter time than 20 years. Let's be honest here, if you can't bring a product to market in 10 years after conception(and patent approval), you're not going to bring the product to market.

Imagine if John Carmack patented even half of the techniques he used in Quake or the first Doom. How many games would even exist today? Surely not Call of Duty, Battlefield, or any other 3D first-person shooter. Probably a whole bunch of others.

Quote: "being property, why shouldn't the artist benefit from their property even if it's 80 years from when they made it"

When the artist, or the megacorporation behind them, abuses the system to take away other and more fundamental rights in the name of intellectual property rights. And in any case, how many pieces of art that are 70 years old or older are still benefiting the original artist in a substantial way? Very rarely does art persist through the generations strong enough to be profitable for the artist in any meaningful way.

Follow WTLD's progress on Twitter
Git repository for WasTeLanD
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 10th May 2012 02:39 Edited at: 10th May 2012 05:02
Link
Quote: "but when many signed these deals it may just as well have been at gunpoint as their futures were on the line"


Point is that regardless of "their futures", they weren't held at gunpoint. Here in the US and most Common Law nations, this is the case.

If someone is concerned about their future, they need to get a steady job first...THEN worry about trying to make it big in showbiz WHILE they either continue their day job (unless they've saved up enough money to live off until they strike it big). Unfortunately in this wreck of a society people have this backwards. "Ar-teests" seem to always be one of the big culprits there.

Set the scene...a coffee shop. A customer walks in, strikes up a convo with the girl at the register while she makes the order and somehow this comes up in the conversation....



And yes, I've known many artsy types like this. In fact, one of my uncles gave up a great job because he wanted to be a graphic designer. He moved from FL to PA and sunk money into an arts school (jokes really, IMHO) for graphic design (apparently you can't do graphic design without a "holy scroll"). Now, 15 years later it's still biting him in the butt, not because he's a bad artist but because he's trying to get that perfect job.


@Dar13

I guess it just comes down to respect for an individual's property rights (assuming you consider IP to be property like land, house, car, &&c) vs. "lack" of respect for the same.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 10th May 2012 04:09
Link
Nateholio that made me gag...

But regarding the talk of having registered a patent and not doing anything with it for a decade... Sometimes they may not be ready for it or technology may not be up to scratch for an idea to be created... This was the example that escaped me earlier...

Back to top
Profile PM
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 10th May 2012 05:03
Link
Quote: "Nateholio that made me gag"


Need a tissue? A drink of water? Perhaps Roto-Rooter?

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 10th May 2012 05:04
Link


Back to top
Profile PM
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 10th May 2012 11:50
Link
Start:

Quote: ""but when many signed these deals it may just as well have been at gunpoint as their futures were on the line""


Quote: "Point is that regardless of "their futures", they weren't held at gunpoint."


Point is, regardless of "them not being held at gunpoint", they were may just as well have been

GOTO Start


...Circular argument. Now I see your point and I never for a minute actually said "they don't have a choice or they'll starve". I mentioned "their futures" - as in their creative futures. Any true artist cares more about their creativity than making money from it. People who are in creative fields primarily for financial gain don't deserve their talent. Financial gain is a reward (or should be) for being good at what you do. This encourages true originality as apposed to generic, crowd-pleasing tripe.

Quote: "If someone is concerned about their future, they need to get a steady job first...THEN worry about trying to make it big in showbiz WHILE they either continue their day job (unless they've saved up enough money to live off until they strike it big)"


In other words, what you're saying is an artist has to have another source of income and then launch themselves? Funny, coz that kinda goes along the same line of thinking as why I said the enforcement of copyright on music should be only 30 years - because the artist cannot solely rely on that revenue.

If the artist is worth anything, s/he'll continue to pursue his creative endeavors while earning money from an external source. In other words he places more worth on his creativity than his earnings from it. So if his art makes him money, great but if not keep working, keep making stuff and just enjoy the small audience you have.

So if an artist made it big with whatever piece, he's prolly ended up well-off enough that in 30 years he doesn't need those tiny amounts he gets from royalties from the odd sale/use/whatever.

But if he never made it big, then 30 years later, that odd little bit of extra income he gets from a few sales won't do him much good anyway.

Who loses out: Corporations like labels. Why are they important? Because... Oh wait they aren't. They are just middlemen and in today's world where one can self-publish stuff using the net, they are redundant.

Besides, true fans will still buy an original, even if a free version is available because they are true fans. Merchandise helps too. Most people are suckers for "limited edition" box sets. In fact people like even normal box sets. People want physical stuff they can touch and hold, if they didn't there's be no more music stores and we'd all be shopping on iTunes.

Aside from anything else, I hold ETHICS above the laws of any country. If somebody tricks somebody into something, I don't care if it is legal or not; they are wrong for tricking somebody. I guess that's why I'll prolly die a poor artist. But at least I'll die with my pride in tact and pride's one of the only things you can take with you to the grave. No money, flashy watches or fast cars. I know this is not an easy concept to understand for most (who have been inundated with capatalist propaganda since birth) but taking a step outside the system, one can quickly see the flaws.

Using people is wrong, on all levels. If I see a man dying of thirst and charge him 500% of the usual price for a bottle of water, it is wrong. Even if it is legal. By the same token, I would never infringe upon somebody else's right to charge him 500% usual price but I would offer the thirsty man free/cheap water if I had some.

So record labels taking advantage of desperation from artists or their legal ignorance (as I mentioned earlier, many artists are painted a different picture from what's in the contract).

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 10th May 2012 12:34 Edited at: 10th May 2012 12:46
Link
Quote: "Any true artist cares more about their creativity than making money from it."


I can agree with that. However, a lot go too far in that respect.

Quote: "This encourages true originality as apposed to generic, crowd-pleasing tripe."


Heh. Then how do you explain the last 15 years of crap coming from the music companies?

Quote: "Funny, coz that kinda goes along the same line of thinking as why I said the enforcement of copyright on music should be only 30 years"


Ahh, but you did say there should be a term limit, maybe 10 years over what I said, but a limit nonetheless.

Quote: "Aside from anything else, I hold ETHICS above the laws of any country. If somebody tricks somebody into something, I don't care if it is legal or not; they are wrong for tricking somebody. I guess that's why I'll prolly die a poor artist. But at least I'll die with my pride in tact and pride's one of the only things you can take with you to the grave."


Agreed. Unfortunately people on all sides of the economic spectrum don't feel this way.

Quote: "who have been inundated with capatalist propaganda since birth"


Well first, to let you in on a little secret...capitalism hasn't been advocated for or objectively taught in schools for QUITE some time, even here in the US. The phrase "capitalism" is a creation of those who despised it to distinguish it from socialism (FACT - read Communist Manifesto) and give it an "evil" face. I don't particularly care for it either, but next to free markets, I believe it's the most compassionate economic policy you can find (I'm a free market guy myself).
I would like to know, as it seems you despise capitalism (I don't know that for sure); what percentage of your work, time, or income do you freely give away to those who NEED it because you have the ABILITY to do so (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need); basically, how much do you make from not exercising capitalism? Contrast that with this question: what percentage of your income do you draw from exercising capitalism, or if you refuse to say you exercise capitalism, the free market? Obviously these questions are quite personal, and thus not meant to be answered, but rather to get you and others to think about it objectively.

Seems like we are wading into waters where the lock-hammer might come out, but I hope not. It would be a bit ironic that a company who makes money using free market/capitalism would lock a thread where people are conversing about it in a friendly and formal manner.

Quote: "If I see a man dying of thirst and charge him 500% of the usual price for a bottle of water, it is wrong. Even if it is legal. By the same token, I would never infringe upon somebody else's right to charge him 500% usual price but I would offer the thirsty man free/cheap water if I had some."


Agreed. You will find with any organization, whether corporate or gov't, that the larger it gets the more "corrupt" it's practices become. There are some exceptions, but they are few and far between. However, this example is completely different than an artist falling into a bad contract out of desperation. The man with no water is actually dying while the artist has placed more importance on art rather than keeping himself from becoming like the thirsty man, even if it means he must shelve art to work elsewhere for awhile.

In the interest of keeping on subject and not getting this thread locked, send me an email if you want to converse more on off-topic subjects which have been brought up. I'm done with it here

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 10th May 2012 12:53
Link
Ooooookaaaaaaeeeeeeehhhhhyyyy

this is the point where I say...

Signing Off...

getting too long for me to read...

Back to top
Profile PM
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 10th May 2012 14:54
Link
Quote: "However, a lot go too far in that respect."

What do you mean by "too far"? An artist can never go too far in placing art over profit.

Quote: "Heh. Then how do you explain the last 15 years of crap coming from the music companies?"

You answered your own question there: Because it came from, as you put it, "music companies". Kinda proves my point for me... Though the smaller labels and indie artists are producing great stuff. The so-called crap is just what you hear on the radio/tv and what fills the shelves of most american music stores. You'll find some great stuff coming out of Europe but it gets little coverage over the american R&B rubbish.

Quote: "Agreed. Unfortunately people on all sides of the economic spectrum don't feel this way."

I know that. Sad but true. All I can say is that's something they'll have to live with.


Quote: "The phrase "capitalism" is a creation of those who despised it"

I'm not a socialist/communist nor am I against the system of capatalism. I'm against the abuse of the system to take advantage of others. As to the question of how much I give to others, the answer is about 70% of my efforts in all fields. I make very little money as I'm freelancing atm because I got suckered by someone and have fallen on hard times. I'm also a believer in a person's right to charge what they like for a service/product but I'm ethically opposed to taking it too far.

Quote: "However, this example is completely different than an artist falling into a bad contract out of desperation."

Okay, let's say he was just thirsty. It is still ethically wrong to charge him 500%.

Quote: "send me an email if you want to converse more on off-topic subjects which have been brought up"

Cant right now. Sorry, on my phone atm and didn't see that last bit. Will add my email address to my profile later

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 10th May 2012 15:32
Link
Quote: "What do you mean by "too far"? An artist can never go too far in placing art over profit."


well, if it is my JOB, then offcourse i can definitly go too far, FOR MY OWN SAKE.


The result of origin.. Oh and ponies
Back to top
Profile PM
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 10th May 2012 20:20
Link
Quote: "well, if it is my JOB, then offcourse i can definitly go too far, FOR MY OWN SAKE."


If it's your job to complete a task assigned to you, for example make a kids character for cereal boxes, and you're into dark themes then I guess you couldn't go drawing something that would scare little children ... I would, but I'm... well me.

But if you're making your own stuff then you should never conform to what you think sells. Put it this way, don't ever let the commercial world swallow you. I think it's important for an artist to keep his/her own voice.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 10th May 2012 23:12
Link
Quote: "Ahhh, and we *seem* to have arrived at the typical stance of most programming/game forums I've lurked around. Patents should be subject to the "the greater good" while works of art should be protected, by nuclear weapons if necessary."


Yah, it's quite hypocritical. I am a resounding 'for' copyright and 'for' software patents.

Quote: "Any true artist cares more about their creativity than making money from it."


This is beyond pretentious. Who are you to say this? So Paul McCartney is not a "true" artist because he cares about making money from The Beatles discography? Please.


Senior Developer - CBS Interactive Music Group
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 10th May 2012 23:16
Link
Quote: "Any true artist cares more about their creativity than making money from it."


so... Everyone who are into making games, movies and the like are not true artists.. because they want pay for it?
Seems legit.


The result of origin.. Oh and ponies
Back to top
Profile PM
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 10th May 2012 23:50 Edited at: 10th May 2012 23:53
Link
Quote: "So Paul McCartney is not a "true" artist because he cares about making money from The Beatles discography?Please."


I never said that. I was talking in terms of one's priorities. What I mean is one should always prioritise one's art over one's wallet. This is advice coming from a person with experience. If anyone had bothered to read my most recent post (just before this one) you'd have got it. I advocating using your talents to make money BUT don't ever give up your artistic voice. So if the beatles had made music with the sole intention of making money then they are/were not true artist. If they made music because that was their passion, then THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WANTING REMUNERATION. That is what I am saying... Forum users: Stop taking everything I say outta context. Or is that "stop taking everything I say outta contents"

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 11th May 2012 00:17 Edited at: 11th May 2012 00:51
Link
We seem to have arrived at that point where art and invention are two separate entities.
Quote: "
What I mean is one should always prioritise one's art over one's wallet.This is advice coming from a person with experience."

I got over thirty years working as an artist do I qualify to say I got experience too?
The sad fact is we all got to eat and pay bills, or your not going to be able to do much of anything, I hope your not one of those who thinks cos an artist goes 'commercial' (so to speak) that they are a sellout...my own experience is that it would be nice to make a living doing your own thing entirely and up to a point you can...but here's how it works...if your really, really good at what you do you are less likely to have others who will try to tell you how to do it, its really as simple as that, as an artist you will find folks pay for your vision and then you will have those that just want to utilise your skills for their vision.
The utopian view of the starving artist who wont sell out cos he wont compromise his art is a myth and anyone who follows this mantra is generally using it as excuse for the fact they never sold much of their work (hence the starving),at least I have found this in my experience.
Its an outdated view perpetrated by bohemian idiocracy, I actually did believe the same at one point but then I grew up....quickly.

I dont understand the gripe about copyright in art or music, if you want to copy a painting by any artist (considering you have the skills) and put your own name on the work you can do what you like with it including sell it (different if its mass distribution print which harms sales of the original).If you want to cover a song by a major artist and perform it live anywhere any time of your choosing nothing to stop you (I already covered recording and selling a few posts above).

Now invention and design are a different thing, if you want to argue that copyright and patent prevents general availability of something that's of actual benefit to the greater good then something should be done to prevent that happening.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Back to top
Profile PM
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 11th May 2012 09:36
Link
@rolfy
Now your comment actually makes sense. Mature and well composed too btw. I totally agree we all have to eat and pay bills. That's why I said that if you have a talent and can use it to make some cash then do so! I just meant that in the process of making money, don't ever stop producing your own work that you wanna do either - even if it's nothing more then "on the side". The gist of what I've been getting at is that an artist need not sell out to make money. They can make the crowd pleasers and their own stuff. I'll quite happily take my novels and short stories to the grave if every publisher told me to change something (not really I'd self-publish on Kindle or whatever). But at
the same time, I will never turn around to an employer and say "I don't write about that!" because that would really be cutting off my nose to spite my face.

As for copyrights, I agree that you should be allowed to do a cover song so long as you credit the original band/artist. I too don't understand the gripe about bands doing cover songs. I think it should be considered as "fair use".

A for patents, well, I pretty much agree too. If it's for the greater good, then something must be done (ie life-saving medication). Maybe there's a middle ground that can be reached.

... ... ... You know its funny, everytime this sorta stuff gets brought up in a thread, arguments start and somebody starts getting outta hand, people take each others words outta context, an innocent side-comment ends up the main source of debate and some people contradict themselves. *sighs* I'm wondering if Intellectual Property Rights isn't going to pick up where contraception left off (that was just a flip comment - in case a mod slaps me on wrists for that remark since it borderlines on bad.).

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 11th May 2012 10:28
Link
Quote: "Its an outdated view perpetrated by bohemian idiocracy"


Seems a lot of things are perpetuated by that group, and just about all of them are based on subjectivity rather than objectivity.

Quote: "I actually did believe the same at one point but then I grew up....quickly"


Heh, we all have that. Fortunately most of us do grow up when we enter the real world and leave the sterile high school/college environment behind. The biggest change for me was in political views.

Quote: "You know its funny, everytime this sorta stuff gets brought up in a thread, arguments start"


I think that's the problem really - arguments, name calling, too many opinions and not enough facts, &&c. It doesn't seem as if mods just lock threads because they get political, and IMHO it's be silly to do so, unless the thread subject has nothing to do with politics. This thread obviously touches both politics and economics. If you can have a mature conversation or debate on a subject and stay around the subject itself, then why not allow it? There's self-moderation too, that's why I stepped away from my points above, as they were getting into waters where we might get a thread lock and the conversation was getting a bit far from the subject.

Quote: "I will never turn around to an employer and say "I don't write about that!" because that would really be cutting off my nose to spite my face"


How many younger people today, in the high school and college ages, think this way though? From where I'm sitting it seems the majority don't...and that's not just artists. Many feel that since they have a degree they are entitled to a position which fits said degree.
Guys from my high school days (including myself) who went out and started at the bottom and gained EXPERIENCE now have decent jobs that usually require college degrees, while the ones who went to college are still working in not-so-decent jobs. Honestly makes me snicker.

Quote: "If it's for the greater good, then something must be done (ie life-saving medication)"


Ah, but you forget the unseen consequences. What if said person decides they don't want to release their idea because they are being "robbed" of it (known as "Going Galt")? They destroy any formulas they have and all that's left is what's in their head. What does society then do, arrest the person? How does this situation serve the "greater good"? Granted this is an extreme example, but serves to make the point.
The same can be said for artists. I was watching some youtube videos of this art instructor using Photoshop that I found amazing. What if the "greater good" was served by robbing him of his rights to what he created and he decided to just stop creating? Society would have basically cut off a source of wonderful digital paintings, and possibly a source of knowledge of how to make them.
Seeing the unseen is important when making decisions like the length of rights to IP.

A link to one of the videos I was watching. Really gives an EE type like myself insight into how this stuff is created:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk4pVF4IRKU

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 11th May 2012 13:05 Edited at: 11th May 2012 13:23
Link
Quote: "How many younger people today, in the high school and college ages, think this way though? From where I'm sitting it seems the majority don't...and that's not just artists."


Wait, we need to read a book? Iam out of here.

^
Based on a true story i might add, once one class found out they had to READ on their swedish lessions they quit.


The result of origin.. Oh and ponies
Back to top
Profile PM
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 11th May 2012 21:31
Link
Quote: "Quote: "If it's for the greater good, then something must be done (ie life-saving medication)"

Ah, but you forget the unseen consequences. What if said person decides they don't want to release their idea because they are being "robbed" of it (known as "Going Galt")? They destroy any formulas they have and all that's left is what's in their head."


I was thinking more along the lines of government buying the patent. If governments have the funding to waste on politicians' salaries, arms deals (My country threw 140 million ZAR away some time ago), etc then I'm sure they could afford to buy a patent for an important drug (or at least a licence to manufacture it)... Of course that's my wishful thinking again. It'd prolly more be like capture the guy and torture the formula out of him and then make it look like he died in a car crash.

Quote: "once one class found out they had to READ on their swedish lessions they quit."


That's scary. Literally, you should have posted that in the "What scares you in an FPS thread" as an idea on how to scare younger players: Show them a book

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 11th May 2012 22:25
Link
Quote: "That's scary. Literally, you should have posted that in the "What scares you in an FPS thread" as an idea on how to scare younger players: Show them a book "


Yeah, it is scary how few teenagers nowadays willingly reads book, half of my class have barely touched a book before..


The result of origin.. Oh and ponies
Back to top
Profile PM
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 12th May 2012 09:01
Link
Who here read constantly when in school, out of their own will of course?

I can't even count how many novels and science books I read. Books are much more wonderful in movies in many respects - mainly that you can use you own imagination to construct the scenes.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-21 20:16:45
Your offset time is: 2025-05-21 20:16:45