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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
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?

Or, like the artists of 18th century, live their entire lives under extreme financial anxiety or poverty. And those were the creative giants, the geniuses of their times (and possibly of all history). Average artists should be able to earn a decent income, and if they create something popular, they shouldn't earn a decent income at all -- they should make the same amount of money as a movie star or NFL quarterback. Damn straight George Martin should be set for life for writing Game of Thrones.

If an inventor creates a piece of software that's used by 90%+ of PCs, they should become the richest person in the world.

If you don't like it, then enter politics and try to change the world. I'd say good luck with that, but it would be pretty sarcastic

 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.

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.

Or, perhaps history has taught us that artistic merits are of value, but of not open enough worth to allow or sustain everyone to pursue them. That we needed to inflate arbitrary standards, now very much corrupt, to try to achieve the goals of making it "fair." I hate to tell you, but artists are still abused under patronage, it's called record labels, movie/television studios, and CG sweatshops. Times have not changed even with IP law. It's perhaps more worth note that IP law has only really benefited singular stand outs, who'd have likely to succeeded otherwise, not the other way around.

Artists actively bucking those trends and becoming independent and selling themselves as the brand, not their product, are rampaging ahead with success. Patreon itself is a great example and I already gave a link of someone doing that. It's as if entirely bypassing the concept of idea ownership and instead selling a service is how art functions. Weird, right?

Almost all movement on IP laws these days have been harsher and harsher crack downs which has exacerbated the inability to stem the tide of infrignement. The only benefactors are the major corporations suing each other or trying to actually halt creativity by smaller entities. Oh, look, Games Workshop is not only an IP infringer with how heavy handed they're lifting of old properties was initially, but also now one of those companies trying to actively abuse the laws to stifle competition.

Working as intended, right?

And as to technology, you sound like a horse salesmen as Ford announces his new capabilities to produce automobiles.

Maybe art is not yet sustainable. Maybe the economy itself needs to move to a post scarcity system (think Star Trek universe) to fully make it so...

Except George Martin didn't write "A Song Of Ice And Fire" and stop, did he?

Much like anyone else doing a job, in order to keep his income going, he kept writing.

Comparing any modern artist to 18th Century peers is utterly fallacious, just as it would be to compare some serf from medieval times to a modern farmer, there is really no comparison to be drawn.

Equally, expecting to earn from work done decades before has no other corollary in working life, I don't get paid commission from sales I made for a former employer 5 years ago, even if my employer is still profiting from that customer.

 Talys wrote:

If an inventor creates a piece of software that's used by 90%+ of PCs, they should become the richest person in the world.

Something tells me you haven't seen "Pirates of the Silicon Valley".

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except George Martin didn't write "A Song Of Ice And Fire" and stop, did he?

Much like anyone else doing a job, in order to keep his income going, he kept writing.

Comparing any modern artist to 18th Century peers is utterly fallacious, just as it would be to compare some serf from medieval times to a modern farmer, there is really no comparison to be drawn.

Equally, expecting to earn from work done decades before has no other corollary in working life, I don't get paid commission from sales I made for a former employer 5 years ago, even if my employer is still profiting from that customer.

Actually, comparing a serf of medieval times to a modern day laborer is perfectly fair. If not for the rise of unions and worker rights bills and many reformations that empowered workers relative to land/factory owners, life would be a lot harder for a non-existent middle class. Likewise, copyright laws and treaties gave rise to a tidal wave of creative types that did not exist centuries ago in the same proportions of society as today (of course, there are other factors like scarcity of food and geopolitical stability).

Regarding work done decades ago: inventors are rewarded with ownership of their ideas for their lifetimes and about 3 generations afterwards. We live in a society which strongly incentivizes invention and creativity.

I find the debate slightly hilarious, because you're arguing for something that does not exist (effectively, anywhere in this world that you would dare to live), and that nobody on this forum realistically expects to happen in their lifetime.

Regarding George Martin -- nobody knew who he was before A Game of Thrones; and very few people have read anything written by him other than Song of Fire and Ice and its derivative works. Actually, mostly, people have just watched the HBO series, LOL.

 Talys wrote:


Regarding work done decades ago: inventors are rewarded with ownership of their ideas for their lifetimes and about 3 generations afterwards. We live in a society which strongly incentivizes invention and creativity.

One thing Steve Jobs and Bill Gates agree on is that Pirates of Silicon Valley is a nice piece of... fiction

Yea, "fiction". Sure.

And society does not provide incentive towards invention. It's actually prioritizes being first. I'd have to pull up the research, but there was a period of time prior to telecommunications when people would watch patent offices and then race across the ocean, in either direction, to the "first to file" on a new technology in a new country so that they would have rights.

History has shown time and time again that the inventor isn't the winner. The entrepreneur usually is, who is supported entirely by...

... you guessed it, arbitrary laws!

 TheKbob wrote:


History has shown time and time again that the inventor isn't the winner. The entrepreneur usually is, who is supported entirely by...

... you guessed it, arbitrary laws!

Yep! Written by people you (or your parents and their parents) put into office. Unless you didn't vote. In which case... well... you can't complain

By the way, the movie is supposed to be reasonably accurate "where it counts" -- but from what I recall, artistic license was exercised to mesh urban legends with reality.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except George Martin didn't write "A Song Of Ice And Fire" and stop, did he?

Much like anyone else doing a job, in order to keep his income going, he kept writing.

Comparing any modern artist to 18th Century peers is utterly fallacious, just as it would be to compare some serf from medieval times to a modern farmer, there is really no comparison to be drawn.

Equally, expecting to earn from work done decades before has no other corollary in working life, I don't get paid commission from sales I made for a former employer 5 years ago, even if my employer is still profiting from that customer.

Actually, comparing a serf of medieval times to a modern day laborer is perfectly fair. If not for the rise of unions and worker rights bills and many reformations that empowered workers relative to land/factory owners, life would be a lot harder for a non-existent middle class. Likewise, copyright laws and treaties gave rise to a tidal wave of creative types that did not exist centuries ago in the same proportions of society as today (of course, there are other factors like scarcity of food and geopolitical stability).

Regarding work done decades ago: inventors are rewarded with ownership of their ideas for their lifetimes and about 3 generations afterwards. We live in a society which strongly incentivizes invention and creativity.

I find the debate slightly hilarious, because you're arguing for something that does not exist (effectively, anywhere in this world that you would dare to live), and that nobody on this forum realistically expects to happen in their lifetime.

I'm not really arguing for anything, I'm just looking to highlight that creative industries have a degree of protection which doesn't really correlate with any other.

I will also counsel you against speaking in absolutes on the Internet, expect someone to come forward to explain that it is exactly what they expect to happen.

 Talys wrote:

 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.

This goes for most professions. Scientists, Engineers, Artists, anyone not doing physical labor, largely up until the modern era either had to rely on a patron or were already independently wealthy.

Yes, there's a reason for IP protection. However, the idea that Copyright should get up to 70 years after the death of the author, or up to 120 years after date of creation in the case of a corporate creation, while a patent on a physical device only gets 17 (which, in the software arena, can often be the same thing as 120 years), is silly.

The original idea was so that creators could benefit from their work and spur them to create more, but being able to sit on something for what is effectively eternity often has the opposite effect.

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.

11 years ago I worked with a 3D printer that cost several million dollars and could barely match what a $5,000 machine does today. While I would agree that we aren't about to see mass quality 3D printed mini's come out by the end of the year, over the next 5 or 10 years that's going to become a very distinct possibility.

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:


History has shown time and time again that the inventor isn't the winner. The entrepreneur usually is, who is supported entirely by...

... you guessed it, arbitrary laws!

Yep! Written by people you (or your parents and their parents) put into office. Unless you didn't vote. In which case... well... you can't complain

I was not alive in the 1970s, and I presume you can conclude that back to even earlier. I was not within the legal voting age during the DMCA fiasco. So I cannot say I contributed to the mess we're in. I have actively supported those who choose not to enforce arbitrary rules to placate masses, which really just leverage more power against us.

So I have full right to complain and work towards the solution to the best of my ability.

I'd wonder if GRRM would be taking so long to finish his beloved series if he knew the copyright was about ready to expire, allowing another author to swoop in?

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:


History has shown time and time again that the inventor isn't the winner. The entrepreneur usually is, who is supported entirely by...

... you guessed it, arbitrary laws!

Yep! Written by people you (or your parents and their parents) put into office. Unless you didn't vote. In which case... well... you can't complain

I was not alive in the 1970s, and I presume you can conclude that back to even earlier. I was not within the legal voting age during the DMCA fiasco. So I cannot say I contributed to the mess we're in. I have actively supported those who choose not to enforce arbitrary rules to placate masses, which really just leverage more power against us.

So I have full right to complain and work towards the solution to the best of my ability.

Then, be an activist on the matter, and good on you. I applaud anyone who gets involved in improving the system, even if I disagree with their position.

Unless they refuse to accept scientific fact, in which I will applaud their sense of civic duty, but still call them a total idiot. No, humans didn't play with dinosaurs, and yes, global temperatures are rising despite snowmageddon.

And yes, 38,000 years from now (approximately) humans will play with dinosaurs again. It will happen on 745.M41 on the Imperial world of Tyran Primus. FACT.

Oh yes, and Hive Fleet Behemoth will be defeated at Maccragge, because, well, when was the last time a good Ultramarine player lost against Tyranids?

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.

I'm not against inheritance, or monetary support from one's family.

I'm against inheriting copyright on artistic creations that were crafted by a relative of yours probably before you were even born.

Regarding the "no copyright after author dies", I don't entirely agree with it, because premature deaths are an issue and it wouldn't be fair if some author would die two or three years after publishing their first best-seller and their wife/husband/partner/kids would be left without a penny. That's why I would be positive about some arbitrary time limit, like 25 or 30 years.

But swimming in money just because your grandparent had a nice idea and plastered it on a well-selling book? Thanks but no.

Rich kids who have never done a thing in their lives save for inheriting this, this and that (your average conservative politician btw) will of course disagree.

 Korinov wrote:

I'm not against inheritance, or monetary support from one's family.

I'm against inheriting copyright on artistic creations that were crafted by a relative of yours probably before you were even born.

Regarding the "no copyright after author dies", I don't entirely agree with it, because premature deaths are an issue and it wouldn't be fair if some author would die two or three years after publishing their first best-seller and their wife/husband/partner/kids would be left without a penny. That's why I would be positive about some arbitrary time limit, like 25 or 30 years.

But swimming in money just because your grandparent had a nice idea and plastered it on a well-selling book? Thanks but no.

Rich kids who have never done a thing in their lives save for inheriting this, this and that (your average conservative politician btw) will of course disagree.

Your only real solution then, is to move to a warzone country like Yemen, where possession is 10/10ths of the law, or invent a time machine that takes you back before 1790, because copyright has never existed for less than 28 years, since the inception of the concept, and hasn't been less than 30 years since 1831.

The very first time US copyright exist, the term was 28 years -- in 1790. In 1831, it became 42 years. In 1909, it became 56 years. In 1976, it became life + 50 years, and in 1998 went to life +70 years.

The Copyright Term Extension Act passed in the US House with a vote of 297 to 112, meaning both Democrats and Republicans supported it and it's supported by every major music production, movie production, and artist guild in America.

I'm guessing you probably don't like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well, sailed through the House with a voice vote, and then passed the US Senate by unanimous consent.

So you might not like it, and of course you're entitled to that opinion. And if you want to fight for it, all the power to you. Just keep in mind that you live in a republic, not a democracy, and the leaders that have been elected for the last 225 years have moved the needle in the opposite direction as your preference.

If you really want change, you will need to run for office yourself (and win, and find three hundred or so like-minded folks), or out-lobby the movie, music, drug, and tech industries.

 Talys wrote:
So you might not like it, and of course you're entitled to that opinion. And if you want to fight for it, all the power to you. Just keep in mind that you live in a republic, not a democracy, and the leaders that have been elected for the last 225 years have moved the needle in the opposite direction as your preference.

If you really want change, you will need to run for office yourself (and win, and find three hundred or so like-minded folks), or out-lobby the movie, music, drug, and tech industries.

I don't even live in a republic. The world doesn't end in 'murica's borders.

 Korinov wrote:

 Talys wrote:
So you might not like it, and of course you're entitled to that opinion. And if you want to fight for it, all the power to you. Just keep in mind that you live in a republic, not a democracy, and the leaders that have been elected for the last 225 years have moved the needle in the opposite direction as your preference.

If you really want change, you will need to run for office yourself (and win, and find three hundred or so like-minded folks), or out-lobby the movie, music, drug, and tech industries.

I don't even live in a republic. The world doesn't end in 'murica's borders.

Oh, I saw the wrong tag when I replied, sorry It doesn't change my point, though. Copyright terms have never been as low as you would like them to be, certainly not in the memory of anyone who lives today.

Speaking of copyright and the ethics of corporations, what do you guys think about this little something I've just come across:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/videogame-publishers-no-preserving-abandoned-games-even-museums-and-archives

That sounds like they want to enforce planned obsolescence. When people buy a game they own it to play. They're not renting it so shouldn't be at the mercy of the publisher deciding one day they don't want you playing any more so turning off their servers.

I don't think anyone expects companies to support their old games forever as server space costs money. But I don't think the publisher should be allowed to choose when you can't use a product you paid for any more.

Likewise, copyright laws and treaties gave rise to a tidal wave of creative types that did not exist centuries ago in the same proportions of society as today

Seems like a waste of resources, why bother discoverying the "wheel" again, when you can take an already existing thing and copy it. Better yet by not having all that social security stuff you can produce adn sell the same stuff cheaper, effecticly flooding the markets and giving you more cash which you can invest in to copying more stuff, which gives even more money etc.

The idea of copyright as an insurance policy for spouses and offspring is stupid, again another luxury afforded arbitrarily to a singular profession.

What happens if a doctor, engineer, or scientist died early? Their employer will not continue paying out his or her salary. Instead, intelligent ones do what's smart: live below your means, save a significant portion of their income and maintain minimal to no consumer debt.

Saying copyright us a substitute for personal responsibility is weak at best.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
That sounds like they want to enforce planned obsolescence. When people buy a game they own it to play. They're not renting it so shouldn't be at the mercy of the publisher deciding one day they don't want you playing any more so turning off their servers.

I don't think anyone expects companies to support their old games forever as server space costs money. But I don't think the publisher should be allowed to choose when you can't use a product you paid for any more.

Technically, they don't own it to play. When they buy a game, they buy a license that gives them limited rights to play.

As time goes by, it becomes less relevant, since game vendors are all moving towards server-based systems and real-time streaming. At some point, you won't ever "get" anything, virtually eliminating piracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
The idea of copyright as an insurance policy for spouses and offspring is stupid, again another luxury afforded arbitrarily to a singular profession.

What happens if a doctor, engineer, or scientist died early? Their employer will not continue paying out his or her salary. Instead, intelligent ones do what's smart: live below your means, save a significant portion of their income and maintain minimal to no consumer debt.

Saying copyright us a substitute for personal responsibility is weak at best.

This is not true. If a doctor, engineer, or scientist is given stock options for their work, those have durable and investment value, which continue to pay dividends even after they are deceased. In fact, no top doctor, engineer, or scientist (that makes millions per year) will work for a company unless there are long-term benefits like that.

Why should being a successful CEO be more rewarding than being a successful scientist?

Also, for many people (like my parents and their grandparents), ensuring that your kids are more successful and being able to pass stuff on to them is actually a super high priority in life, higher than luxuries for themselves. My mom's parents had 6 kids, and they made sure to buy at least one house for each. Perhaps it's cultural. In any case, I have no idea why there is animosity towards parents who want to leave estates for their kids. There certainly is no way to prevent it, lol.

 Talys wrote:


This is not true. If a doctor, engineer, or scientist is given stock options for their work, those have durable and investment value, which continue to pay dividends even after they are deceased. In fact, no top doctor, engineer, or scientist (that makes millions per year) will work for a company unless there are long-term benefits like that.

Why should being a successful CEO be more rewarding than being a successful scientist?

Also, for many people (like my parents and their grandparents), ensuring that your kids are more successful and being able to pass stuff on to them is actually a super high priority in life, higher than luxuries for themselves. My mom's parents had 6 kids, and they made sure to buy at least one house for each. Perhaps it's cultural. In any case, I have no idea why there is animosity towards parents who want to leave estates for their kids. There certainly is no way to prevent it, lol.

Stock options are very, very different from copyright. One is far from arbitrary, the other is not. Same with any other form. Of retirement funds or insurance policies. These all require foresight and pay in these days. And I don't care what your profession is, the true means of self sustainability is having enough money to support oneself without requiring to work. This is typically achieved as I outlined previously.

Do not conflate the idea of inheritance with copyright. Inheritance is the passing on of accrued wealth, tangible. Copyright is arbitrary. It should not be passed on as you cannot pass on the intellect of a scientist or doctor. Ideas are not scarce or tangible.

And buying your children houses is actually negative in the long run. Again, I apologize for not having the exact book quote, but the best way to ensure your children's potential is to fuel ambition and provide the minimal amount of resources to make them hungry for success. The only true monetary investment that produces dividends is education.

If monetary or tangible acquisitions actually made people happier or better off, lottery winners would be proof of that. And yet the aren't.

Feel free to disagree with me, TheKbob, but I feel copyrights should be long and enduring, and that a good idea is worth a ton of money (really, it can be priceless).

If someone can make money off of my idea for 100 years, I or my successors should earn money from that, effectively, for as long as I can imagine, or for as many generations of successors as I could see in a lifetime (great or great great grandkids). Of course you can disagree, but fortunately for me, the governing bodies and nations of the world take my side.

I have a published piece of software that grants me a royalty as long as it's being used (or a derivative work), whether that is 1 year or 500. It makes the company tens of millions every year -- so, why shouldn't it enrich me? They could have paid me in stock options too, but I chose durable royalties instead.

Also, I can only go from my personal experiences. My parents were pretty generous, and I think I turned into a reasonably productive member of society.

 Talys wrote:
Feel free to disagree with me, TheKbob, but I feel copyrights should be long and enduring, and that a good idea is worth a ton of money (really, it can be priceless).

If someone can make money off of my idea for 100 years, I or my successors should earn money from that, effectively, for as long as I can imagine, or for as many generations of successors as I could see in a lifetime (great or great great grandkids). Of course you can disagree, but fortunately for me, the governing bodies and nations of the world take my side.

I have a published piece of software that grants me a royalty as long as it's being used (or a derivative work), whether that is 1 year or 500. It makes the company tens of millions every year -- so, why shouldn't it enrich me? They could have paid me in stock options too, but I chose durable royalties instead.

Also, I can only go from my personal experiences. My parents were pretty generous, and I think I turned into a reasonably productive member of society.

Luckily we also know that lobbyists are behind much of the copyright and that the market is actively disagreeing with the laws. And its proving that enforcement is impractical. It's also a civil matter, not criminal, further diminishing it's ability.

Also, software is in contention as it's also seen as mathematics, which equations cannot be protected. And so quickly becomes iterated and invalid that it's becoming impractical to enforce.

Many other laws were supported globally, but that doesn't make them right. That's the appeal to authority fallacy. And your anecdote is not backed up by research.

See, this is why we need to teach children critical thinking over rote memorization. We'd have more folks actively questioning our world and laws versus falling to easy fallacies of logic and considering that a legitimate reason.

 TheKbob wrote:

Luckily we also know that lobbyists are behind much of the copyright and that the market is actively disagreeing with the laws. And its proving that enforcement is impractical. It's also a civil matter, not criminal, further diminishing it's ability.

Also, software is in contention as it's also seen as mathematics, which equations cannot be protected. And so quickly becomes iterated and invalid that it's becoming impractical to enforce.

Many other laws were supported globally, but that doesn't make them right. That's the appeal to authority fallacy. And your anecdote is not backed up by research.

See, this is why we need to teach children critical thinking over rote memorization. We'd have more folks actively questioning our world and laws versus falling to easy fallacies of logic and considering that a legitimate reason.

Let's meet back here in 20 years and see which way the needle has moved ^.^

Just because you believe the world should be one way doesn't mean that you are in the majority, and even thus, we live in a world where the majority elects lawmakers; we don't live by plebicite. Feel free to hate lobbyists, but they aren't going anywhere and if you want to effect change, be prepared to pay them.

Anyways this is so far off topic that it's silly. Back to the original question, websites selling recast products are breaking the law in their country -- at least, if it's a country that you can buy product from.

 Talys wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
That sounds like they want to enforce planned obsolescence. When people buy a game they own it to play. They're not renting it so shouldn't be at the mercy of the publisher deciding one day they don't want you playing any more so turning off their servers.

I don't think anyone expects companies to support their old games forever as server space costs money. But I don't think the publisher should be allowed to choose when you can't use a product you paid for any more.

Technically, they don't own it to play. When they buy a game, they buy a license that gives them limited rights to play.

As time goes by, it becomes less relevant, since game vendors are all moving towards server-based systems and real-time streaming. At some point, you won't ever "get" anything, virtually eliminating piracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
The idea of copyright as an insurance policy for spouses and offspring is stupid, again another luxury afforded arbitrarily to a singular profession.

What happens if a doctor, engineer, or scientist died early? Their employer will not continue paying out his or her salary. Instead, intelligent ones do what's smart: live below your means, save a significant portion of their income and maintain minimal to no consumer debt.

Saying copyright us a substitute for personal responsibility is weak at best.

This is not true. If a doctor, engineer, or scientist is given stock options for their work, those have durable and investment value, which continue to pay dividends even after they are deceased. In fact, no top doctor, engineer, or scientist (that makes millions per year) will work for a company unless there are long-term benefits like that.

I honestly don't know many scientists or engineers that make millions per year unless they are associated with television somehow. Many of the top scientists in the world make very little, relatively speaking. Scientists are rarely offered long term positions at most companies, unless they go into the private industry, or the military. Most scientists seek tenure so they can research at their leisure, secure in their paychecks.
Doctors are different of course. Many who open up private practices make quite a bit of money, though even they struggle to enter the millions per year category.

To earn millions per year, you usually need ownership of something. Either yourself as a brand, housing, stock, something that makes you money without active hours.

 Talys wrote:

Why should being a successful CEO be more rewarding than being a successful scientist?

It shouldn't, but it is. When I was just entering the private sector, I worked for a CEO who made millions per year. This person had no education, but was born into a wealthy well connected family, and hired people to make all of his money for him. He would show up for work around noon, work 3 hours (while clearly intoxicated) and go home, all while making more then the entire work force combined. I know many CEO's who are like this. I know no scientists that are like this.

 Talys wrote:

Also, for many people (like my parents and their grandparents), ensuring that your kids are more successful and being able to pass stuff on to them is actually a super high priority in life, higher than luxuries for themselves. My mom's parents had 6 kids, and they made sure to buy at least one house for each. Perhaps it's cultural. In any case, I have no idea why there is animosity towards parents who want to leave estates for their kids. There certainly is no way to prevent it, lol.

Sure there is, increase the estate tax and make it widely applicable. There is no way currently implemented, because all the people who would be effected by such a decision are the ones making those decisions, but there are ways to do so.

That being said, I came from a wealthy family (extremely) but wasn't handed anything. I still had an advantage over my peers in knowing I could always move home and start over, and if I really got into trouble, my parents could bail me out (which did happen once with the law). I bought all my own cars and homes as well, as did my brother.

To be on topic, I'm fine with recasts. I'm fine with downloading music and movies too. While buying the former isn't illegal, you could argue it's immoral, but that is a shaky position. And, to be honest, not one I care about.
Recently a friend of mine has gotten quite skilled with a 3D printer. He is making GW minis as best he can for his friends for cost of materials alone. I plan on completing my collection and owning every army at that time

 Talys wrote:
.
Let's meet back here in 20 years and see which way the needle has moved ^.^

Just because you believe the world should be one way doesn't mean that you are in the majority, and even thus, we live in a world where the majority elects lawmakers; we don't live by plebicite. Feel free to hate lobbyists, but they aren't going anywhere and if you want to effect change, be prepared to pay them.

Anyways this is so far off topic that it's silly. Back to the original question, websites selling recast products are breaking the law in their country -- at least, if it's a country that you can buy product from.

It's not a belief. It's based on rational fact, not hopeful feeling. And its entirely on topic. Recasts legality is entirely based upon the arbitrary notion of copyright.


For more legitimate proof of my position, not just the "I'm trying to protect my livelihood through arbitrary barriers," please read this:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/TPP%20Econ%20Presentation.pdf

@Akiasura - estate tax is a burden only on the middle class in any jurisdiction that has it.

Anyone with a LOT of money can wrap their cash and real estate in a trust or corporate vehicle, or simply buy a citizenship (effectively) in a tax treaty country with no inheritance tax, like Canada.

Remember, if you bequeath shares to someone thy only pay capital gains on the profit (sale minus purchase price or cost base) after the shares sell. It doesn't work to tax unsold shares because of many obvious reasons.

Who it really hurts are the 3 siblings who inherited $50,000 and a house, not the 3 siblings that inherit $500 million and a hotel chain.

Regarding scientists and such: If you're brilliant, someone will snap you up and pay you generously. If you're also shrewd, you'll negotiate some equity or enduring incone stream from the inventions that the company really wants -- or, sell your invention / company to a big company for a lot of money. More or less, how I made a couple of bucks. I tell you, companies will pay vast amounts of money for a good idea, and obscene amounts of money if that good idea has materialized in any meaningful way, which is the way it should be.

Incidentally, as a one-time C-level executive, my attitude was that if someone is making you tons of money, compensate them really well, because that is how you get more really good people. It's not what you pay them, it's the difference between that and what they do for the company.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:


It's not a belief. It's based on rational fact, not hopeful feeling. And its entirely on topic. Recasts legality is entirely based upon the arbitrary notion of copyright.


For more legitimate proof of my position, not just the "I'm trying to protect my livelihood through arbitrary barriers," please read this:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/TPP%20Econ%20Presentation.pdf

Most laws are arbitrary. Why is murder 25 years, instead of being drawn and quartered? Why is a statute of limitations 2, 3, 5 or 30 years? Why don't thieves have their hands chopped off? Why is a woman caught driving in Saudi Arabia publicly flogged?

If you want to make your life cause the reshaping of IP laws, I applaud your effort to try, even if I (vehemently) disagree. It's not an election winner, and people on your side of the fence don't tend to drop big campaign bucks, which you can't win am election without, so I don't think there's much chance for movement in your desired direction. But you're entitled to your opinion,just as the world is what it is, and I'll just leave it at that.

 Talys wrote:
@Akiasura - estate tax is a burden only on the middle class in any jurisdiction that has it.

Anyone with a LOT of money can wrap their cash and real estate in a trust or corporate vehicle, or simply buy a citizenship (effectively) in a tax treaty country with no inheritance tax, like Canada.

Remember, if you bequeath shares to someone thy only pay capital gains on the profit (sale minus purchase price or cost base) after the shares sell. It doesn't work to tax unsold shares because of many obvious reasons.

Who it really hurts are the 3 siblings who inherited $50,000 and a house, not the 3 siblings that inherit $500 million and a hotel chain.

Considering the estate tax only kicks in after 1.5 million (and that is the smallest amount, it changes depending on several factors) I strongly doubt that this is the case, at least in the US. Unless that lady left 50k each to her kids...and a 1.495 million dollar home too.

 Talys wrote:

Regarding scientists and such: If you're brilliant, someone will snap you up and pay you generously. If you're also shrewd, you'll negotiate some equity or enduring incone stream from the inventions that the company really wants -- or, sell your invention / company to a big company for a lot of money. More or less, how I made a couple of bucks. I tell you, companies will pay vast amounts of money for a good idea, and obscene amounts of money if that good idea has materialized in any meaningful way, which is the way it should be.

Who is this someone? Cornell, Harvard, Max Planck, Scripps...none of these companies/colleges pay millions of dollars per year. A football player or singer makes more than any researcher, and CEOs make many times more what they make.

If you work at those companies while your research is ongoing, and I challenge you to do synthetic blood or bone grafts on your own dime, that research is owned by the company/college that provided the money. Not you.
Science is not like programming. It requires vast amounts of money, licenses, equipment, and usually a competent staff. Candy crush, one of the most profitable bits of software created, could be done for relatively no cost when compared to IDO research.
You can tell me all you want, but my work experience has told me that what you are saying is not usually the case. At least, not for scientists.

@Aki - yes, you're right, for most scientists. But most football players don't make it big either. I guess I'm just saying that star innovators have and should have opportunities no less than star athletes, and for that to happen, IP laws are necessary.

By the way, I was talking in generalities about estate tax, not the USA specifically. All I'm saying is that the really rich have access to means of legally avoiding paying estate taxes, and generally pay a very low marginal tax rate anyhow (though they contribute a proportionately really high amount of tax revenue for the country).

Strawman fallacy followed by "well, that's just your opinion, man". I just gave you literal facts on how oppressive copyright laws hinder innovation and economic growth. How they see neither a necessary or sufficient requirement to enable creative works. And they are actively becoming draconian in nature.

This is why we have such bad laws. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.