Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?

Anyone should be able to write a game about Gandalf and Frodo? Someone should be able to make a Book 4 of the Lord of the Rings?

I think not.

The Lord of the Rings franchise is rightly not in the public domain, though one day, it will be.

Correct. Yes. Yes.

We already have that. It's called fanfiction. Change the names and from vampires to CEOs and you have a "BRAND NEW!" IP.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vyxen wrote:

Some people who stand to inherit fortunes may disagree with you. Some people with fortunes to pass to their children and grandchildren may also disagree with your characterization of their successors being just Mr. Layzyass Heir being a parasite.

Like me, for example! I'm a photographer and I love it as a profession and passion. I'm pretty good, too. But I could have never done it without the support of my family, because it's not a profession that pays very well as you start out, and it's not really easy to start a family being a photographer. But because I come from a well-to-do family, I could do something that I love, instead of grinding out a job that I don't. I have two kids, and I want to give them the best start to life, hope they achieve more than me (but will love them more than anything no matter what), and I will be happy to pass on all that I possess to them.

Glad you're bitter that some people have it better than you, though.

If your family chooses to use their earned resources to subsidize an unsustainable practice, that's their choice. I'd rather not have laws in place to force everyone to pay for them. We already know IP has lead to a massive ton of broken window fallacy style law suits.

Also, if you want a better, inverse anecdote, Bill Gates is leaving his children little in inheritance as he knows success is earned, never given. Seems to be a pretty successful dude. I also hear he flagrantly didn't care about IP...

 TheKbob wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I am not arguing the ownership of ideas mate. I am saying "don't recast, as the recast for profit is theft". Reread what I wrote.
Again it doesn't matter what you think if IP theft is a good concept or not, it is simply IP theft.

Still wrong. It's copyright infringement. Not theft. You cannot steal concepts, ideas, etc. By saying theft, you're buying into the corporate lobbyists and their jargon. And it's a civil matter at that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

Giving your heirs money us actually one of the worst ways to ensure their success. The best way is to foster learning and invest in their education, which doesn't need to be done based on your 1980s single smash hit (that you yourself cannot recreate the success because popularity is a black swan, subject to random chance).

So wrong again.

change my wording of theft to infringing someone's IP. Same thing.

I love the cry of everyone saying that handing down a company or riches makes people lazy. My god, are you reading what you are typing. You are making terrible arguments for the sake of being on the other side of the fence. If you have a business or Company, or even an IP worth money, you train them and nurture them to make the most of that money/company. Stop being daft.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

In all honesty, I'll be damned if I let my grandchildren get a living out of things I've done or achieved.

Things like books should have a fixed copyright time (i.e. 30 years or so) and go straight to public domain after that. Mr. Lazyass Heir can go earn his own living instead of parasiting from what someone related to them did a lifetime ago.

Glad you are not my grandparent/father. Your first thought is they are parasites, instead of being nurtured and taught/trained to handle money? Maybe put the recasted miniatures down for a while and focus on parenting.

 TheKbob wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?

Anyone should be able to write a game about Gandalf and Frodo? Someone should be able to make a Book 4 of the Lord of the Rings?

I think not.

The Lord of the Rings franchise is rightly not in the public domain, though one day, it will be.

Correct. Yes. Yes.

We already have that. It's called fanfiction. Change the names and from vampires to CEOs and you have a "BRAND NEW!" IP.

There's fanfic of stuff days after it's published. That has nothing to do with copyrights. Fanfic is not authorized by the author/publisher, and is almost never professionally published. It may or may not infringe on copyright, but if it ever makes significant money, I assure you, there will be a whopper lawsuit.

If you switch things around enough that it's "original", you do have brand new IP. Or, Warhammer 40k.

When you straight up say "you obviously don't care about your grandchildren" and other such nonsense because people take issue with the lengths of IP protections, you've crossed the line where you can tell other people to "stop being daft".

 Rippy wrote:

change my wording of theft to infringing someone's IP. Same thing.

I love the cry of everyone saying that handing down a company or riches makes people lazy. My god, are you reading what you are typing. You are making terrible arguments for the sake of being on the other side of the fence. If you have a business or Company, or even an IP worth money, you train them and nurture them to make the most of that money/company. Stop being daft.

Infringement is not theft, at least in the USA. The US Supreme Court has said as such. Apply what ruling your nation has determined. No matter what, its all still arbitrary as you cannot own ideas.

If you instead invest in the best service or being the best at something, you're likely more to succeed than being the most creative. Rarely the inventor of something is also the greatest beneficiary of the idea. The one that makes it marketable and economically sound is usually the winner. Again, the reality, not the feel good, fluffy reasoning.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

change my wording of theft to infringing someone's IP. Same thing.

I love the cry of everyone saying that handing down a company or riches makes people lazy. My god, are you reading what you are typing. You are making terrible arguments for the sake of being on the other side of the fence. If you have a business or Company, or even an IP worth money, you train them and nurture them to make the most of that money/company. Stop being daft.

Infringement is not theft, at least in the USA. The US Supreme Court has said as such. Apply what ruling your nation has determined. No matter what, its all still arbitrary as you cannot own ideas.

If you instead invest in the best service or being the best at something, you're likely more to succeed than being the most creative. Rarely the inventor of something is also the greatest beneficiary of the idea. The one that makes it marketable and economically sound is usually the winner. Again, the reality, not the feel good, fluffy reasoning.

You have again missed the point. Whooooosh!

Vyxen wrote:

Along the way, I'll be happy to help them whenever I can. I'm not rich, but I'd love to buy my son his first car. I'd love to help my daughter put a down payment on her home. To me, that's a joy of parenthood, not a way to make them lazy. Like everything, there's a happy in-between -- somewhere between the parents that boot you out at 18 and the Paris Hilton's parents.

There's actual research that says doing this for your children actually hurts them in the long run. Making them earn everything, fueled ambitions, but starved just enough of resources creates a basis for success. I'm afraid I can't recall the specific book I read recently that discussed this. I know it's in "Millionaire Next Door" however some of the premises in that book are self gratifying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:
[
You have again missed the point. Whooooosh!

Nope, I haven't. I have actual fact on my side. I can back up my arguments with research, that just takes far long. And I think you're misappropriating trademark versus IP.

You can own a registered trademark. And this has measurable outcomes of implementing.

 TheKbob wrote:

Vyxen wrote:

Along the way, I'll be happy to help them whenever I can. I'm not rich, but I'd love to buy my son his first car. I'd love to help my daughter put a down payment on her home. To me, that's a joy of parenthood, not a way to make them lazy. Like everything, there's a happy in-between -- somewhere between the parents that boot you out at 18 and the Paris Hilton's parents.

There's actual research that says doing this for your children actually hurts them in the long run. Making them earn everything, fueled ambitions, but starved just enough of resources creates a basis for success. I'm afraid I can't recall the specific book I read recently that discussed this. I know it's in "Millionaire Next Door" however some of the premises in that book are self gratifying.

You have again missed the point. Whooosh!
It isn't the point of if it is good for them Anyway. It is the point of it is your right too. Yes I admit handing a 16 year old 1 million dollars and saying "go nuts" is a terrible idea. Teaching them how to invest, how to use the money for professional growth, that is a great thing.

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?.

Not really, no.

Copyright is supposed to protect the rights of the creator of the work. There is absolutely no logical reason for that to transfer to someone else on the creator's death. The only reason it does is because every time Mickey Mouse starts approaching the end of his copyright tenure, Disney campaigns to get the law changed.

 insaniak wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?.

Not really, no.

Copyright is supposed to protect the rights of the creator of the work. There is absolutely no logical reason for that to transfer to someone else on the creator's death. The only reason it does is because every time Mickey Mouse starts approaching the end of his copyright tenure, Disney campaigns to get the law changed.

So anyone should be able to make money off Tolkiens property which his kids inherited?

 Rippy wrote:

You have again missed the point. Whooosh!
It isn't the point of if it is good for them Anyway. It is the point of it is your right too. Yes I admit handing a 16 year old 1 million dollars and saying "go nuts" is a terrible idea. Teaching them how to invest, how to use the money for professional growth, that is a great thing.

So your point is give your kids good education, then yes. Giving them any monetary insensitive outside of actual earnings is negative. That's easy enough but that what was not originally stated. So if by back pedaling then yes, we agree.

Once the original creator of the work dies, yes, their creations should enter public domain.

Because once the original creator is dead, the reason for copyright protection is removed.

Copyright was never intended to protect an idea through multiple generations. It was only supposed to allow the creator of something to fairly profit from their creation.

 Rippy wrote:


So anyone should be able to make money off Tolkiens property which his kids inherited?

Why should they even "inherit" it, it being something inherently arbitrary itself? So more asinine after another is smart? Sure.

And yes, anybody.

 Rippy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?.

Not really, no.

Copyright is supposed to protect the rights of the creator of the work. There is absolutely no logical reason for that to transfer to someone else on the creator's death. The only reason it does is because every time Mickey Mouse starts approaching the end of his copyright tenure, Disney campaigns to get the law changed.

So anyone should be able to make money off Tolkiens property which his kids inherited?

After IIRC 2050 all of Tolkein's works will be in the public domain either way unless the law gets changed to extend it...again. I believe the Hobbit will enter the Public Domain is seventeen years.

But yeah, they didn't write it, it's not their work. Why shouldn't someone else be able to take that story, decades after the death of the author and a lifetime after piblication, and do things with it?

Okay, I'll bite!

So, what happens if company produces a book, that is a collaborative work of 5 authors, the youngest of whom is 19, and the eldest is 90?

Should the copyright expire in 1 year, when the oldest author dies, in 70 years, when the youngest author dies, or after the company goes out of business, 200 years in the future?

What if the book is a collaborative work of 20 authors? I'm not talking about 20 short stories; I'm talking about 20 authors that collaborate and create 1 unified work, for 1 incorporated entity, owned by 100,000 shareholders.

Let's say that collaborative work results in a smashing success that leads to a 15 season television series, 3 spinoffs, and 10 feature films. Why shouldn't the company, which invested into this idea, be the sole owner to that intellectual property?

As someone who writes computer software for a living, I am glad I live in the real world -- you know, the ones where actual laws that really exist and are enforced generate problems and disincentives for IP thieves -- rather than the world that some of you seem to fancy

Vyxen wrote:
Okay, I'll bite!

So, what happens if company produces a book, that is a collaborative work of 5 authors, the youngest of whom is 19, and the eldest is 90?

Companies being involved complicates things somewhat, and is the reason that the laws were changed to a time period rather than just the life of the creator. From that point, opinions vary on just how long that time period should be.

 insaniak wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
Okay, I'll bite!

So, what happens if company produces a book, that is a collaborative work of 5 authors, the youngest of whom is 19, and the eldest is 90?

Companies being involved complicates things somewhat, and is the reason that the laws were changed to a time period rather than just the life of the creator. From that point, opinions vary on just how long that time period should be.

Yes, it does. If it's better for companies in any material sense, every author will just incorporate, and give shares of their company to their kids, spouse and that sort of thing, so that the IP succeeds them smoothly.

Even with dual authorship you have issues. A lot of older successful authors, like Tom Clancy or Clive Cussler write (I say that generously) books "with" someone else, typically much younger. Both are listed as authors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, just so we're clear on actual, real laws that are recognized by the US and pretty much every country you would ever want to visit:

1. Original works created on or after 1978 are valid for life + 70 years after death. With it's jointly created, the 70 years kicks in after the LAST AUTHOR dies.

2. Where the copyright owner is not the creator of the work (like a company), it's the earlier of 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication.

Vyxen wrote:
Okay, I'll bite!

So, what happens if company produces a book, that is a collaborative work of 5 authors, the youngest of whom is 19, and the eldest is 90?

Should the copyright expire in 1 year, when the oldest author dies, in 70 years, when the youngest author dies, or after the company goes out of business, 200 years in the future?

That would be after the death of the last author.

What if the book is a collaborative work of 20 authors? I'm not talking about 20 short stories; I'm talking about 20 authors that collaborate and create 1 unified work, for 1 incorporated entity, owned by 100,000 shareholders.

Let's say that collaborative work results in a smashing success that leads to a 15 season television series, 3 spinoffs, and 10 feature films. Why shouldn't the company, which invested into this idea, be the sole owner to that intellectual property?

They usually are. However, again, corporate works don't have an unlimited copyright span even today.

Ultimately, much like patents, we're talking about protections which were designed to provide incentive to produce new works, but instead have been turned to milking old works forever.

Vaktathi -- I was being a bit of a tart before. I kind of regretted it, because I do know what the actual laws are (70 years after death of last author, or for a commissioned work 95 years after publication, or 120 years after writing).

 Talys wrote:
As someone who writes computer software for a living, I am glad I live in the real world -- you know, the ones where actual laws that really exist and are enforced generate problems and disincentives for IP thieves -- rather than the world that some of you seem to fancy

There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

And just because the notion exists doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's law also doesn't mean it's right. It just means someone thought it was a good idea at the time (and in this case, had something to gain from it a la 'dat mouse).

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:
As someone who writes computer software for a living, I am glad I live in the real world -- you know, the ones where actual laws that really exist and are enforced generate problems and disincentives for IP thieves -- rather than the world that some of you seem to fancy

There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

And just because the notion exists doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's law also doesn't mean it's right. It just means someone thought it was a good idea at the time (and in this case, had something to gain from it a la 'dat mouse).

But it is the law, and people who create content do so knowing that is the framework of protection. You might not think it's right; I think that the length is debatable, but I as a creator of content, I would prefer it to be as long as possible, to protect my personal and professional interest.

In the alternative, I would be spending extraordinary efforts to prevent reverse engineering, and probably make an entire business of such.

I'm not sure how it's in the public interest for copyright terms to be 10 or 25 years. You'd just have fewer people writing things that you might like.

 Rippy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?.

Not really, no.

Copyright is supposed to protect the rights of the creator of the work. There is absolutely no logical reason for that to transfer to someone else on the creator's death. The only reason it does is because every time Mickey Mouse starts approaching the end of his copyright tenure, Disney campaigns to get the law changed.

So anyone should be able to make money off Tolkiens property which his kids inherited?

If they had no part in the creation (and as far as I know, unless the story is derived from Tolkien watching his kids play in the back year when they were young, they didn't. And even if it were, it would be a stretch to say that they deserve the rights to hold the IP. If I am wrong and they did help his write is, I'm sorry for the bad analogy, but my point still remains.), then why should they reap the rewards. Sir Peter Jackson should not be able to claim that the idea was his and he should give due credit to the creator, but I don't think that he should have to pay the heirs of the creator to use the ideas.

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:
As someone who writes computer software for a living, I am glad I live in the real world -- you know, the ones where actual laws that really exist and are enforced generate problems and disincentives for IP thieves -- rather than the world that some of you seem to fancy

There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

And just because the notion exists doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's law also doesn't mean it's right. It just means someone thought it was a good idea at the time (and in this case, had something to gain from it a la 'dat mouse).

But it is the law, and people who create content do so knowing that is the framework of protection. You might not think it's right; I think that the length is debatable, but I as a creator of content, I would prefer it to be as long as possible, to protect my personal and professional interest.

In the alternative, I would be spending extraordinary efforts to prevent reverse engineering, and probably make an entire business of such.

I'm not sure how it's in the public interest for copyright terms to be 10 or 25 years. You'd just have fewer people writing things that you might like.

Or you'd have people who write things I like continuing to write things I like because that's how they make a living?

As a percentage, the individuals who create a single entity which is so popular it is sufficient to support them for the rest of their life, let alone any person beyond that for any extended period, must be quite small?

Creatives will be compelled to create, if what they create is popular, it can earn them a decent income, but how many authors would write one book, do quite well and think, meh, good enough, if I can earn royalties for this for 25 years, I'll stop now. Shame it isn't for life+70, I'd like to have written more books?

 Talys wrote:


I'm not sure how it's in the public interest for copyright terms to be 10 or 25 years. You'd just have fewer people writing things that you might like.

And I think you'd be very incorrect given we've got the entirety of human history back up the fact we can be extremely creative, artistic, and innovative without arbitrary rules to "protect our ideas."

And the logic further instead that you do not create a rule and then find proof, but you must first prove why we need the rule. We have plenty of laws built upon false pretenses that have slowly evaporated as either conditions, expectations, or public knowledge has changed. So the burden of proof is on the lawmaker to show why having any form of intellectual protection is good and how the law can be readily enforced. Right now, it's only enforced through corporate legal teams with take down notices and scare tactics to small time infringers to sucker money out them without going to court.

Actually going to court is foolish and wasteful as the ability to prove willing infringement is incredibly difficult and why the "scare letters" are used for digital goods.

And this will be more pressingly relevant when you can download your minis, which is soon coming.

 TheKbob wrote:
There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

I think that guglielmo marconi may be the first 'IP thief' when he patented the wireless telegraph despite the internals being other peoples inventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_telegraphy

 SirDonlad wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

I think that guglielmo marconi may be the first 'IP thief' when he patented the wireless telegraph despite the internals being other peoples inventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_telegraphy

And the "prior art" debate is introduced! Nah, but that is a big thing in IP. Who did it first*? And when is first? First to market, first to think it up, first to write it down, first to mail the idea to themselves in a sealed envelope through the post?



Rules for rules sake!

*correct answer:

Spoiler:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:


I'm not sure how it's in the public interest for copyright terms to be 10 or 25 years. You'd just have fewer people writing things that you might like.

And I think you'd be very incorrect given we've got the entirety of human history back up the fact we can be extremely creative, artistic, and innovative without arbitrary rules to "protect our ideas."

And the logic further instead that you do not create a rule and then find proof, but you must first prove why we need the rule. We have plenty of laws built upon false pretenses that have slowly evaporated as either conditions, expectations, or public knowledge has changed. So the burden of proof is on the lawmaker to show why having any form of intellectual protection is good and how the law can be readily enforced. Right now, it's only enforced through corporate legal teams with take down notices and scare tactics to small time infringers to sucker money out them without going to court.

Actually going to court is foolish and wasteful as the ability to prove willing infringement is incredibly difficult and why the "scare letters" are used for digital goods.

And this will be more pressingly relevant when you can download your minis, which is soon coming.

I disagree. For virtually the entire history of humanity, artists have been horribly treated. They lived, died and worked at the whim of a patron. You couldn't paint or create music unless there was a rich person who would protect you, clothe you, and feed you.

It's not for lawmakers to prove that intellectual property protection is good. I mean, that is factually incorrect. Since these laws are already written, it's for plaintiffs to argue in front of judges that the intellectual property protection is BAD, or, in the alternative, for citizens to elect new government of like mind. I think the latter is pretty implausible, and the former borders upon the impossible. More likely, if future generations believe as you do, legislation will slowly be implemented that would erode intellectual property rights, while protecting grandfathered works. A change to something like 25 years from publication would be a century or more in the making, even if there were the political will. And that's not exactly an election-winning platform.

I also disagree that protecting IP rights in court is foolish, either to seek injunctive relief, or monetary damages. Not really people who illegally download, but certainly for any organization that profits from it. I think most IP owners would agree with me.

I don't think you will see in the forseeable future the technology where it's cheaper and fast enough to print your own miniatures. At least, not anything that would be comparable to a cast miniature. We have a 3D printer at work, and while it's ok to create some housing prototypes, the quality is not even remotely close to a 40k miniature. And we have a $20,000 printer. Plus, the material isn't exactly cheap.

 TheKbob wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

I think that guglielmo marconi may be the first 'IP thief' when he patented the wireless telegraph despite the internals being other peoples inventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_telegraphy

And the "prior art" debate is introduced! Nah, but that is a big thing in IP. Who did it first*? And when is first? First to market, first to think it up, first to write it down, first to mail the idea to themselves in a sealed envelope through the post?



Rules for rules sake!

*correct answer:

Spoiler:

From what I understand, first is relative to first to take an explained idea/design to the patent office and pay money to patent it. At least as far as entrepreneurial ideas goes.

 Talys wrote:

I disagree. For virtually the entire history of humanity, artists have been horribly treated. They lived, died and worked at the whim of a patron. You couldn't paint or create music unless there was a rich person who would protect you, clothe you, and feed you.

So, just like everyone else to some degree or another?