I guess you won't have to worry about my creations here for a while. Well, maybe my reviews of the DMG, MM, and PHB3 . . . but that's about it. A friend of mine offered a way to get into the Industry or Movie Business. So I'm busy writing a screenplay. My aim is to write a movie that will inspire you to play D&D. I would like you to watch the movie and say, "Hey, that's a D&D movie! I want to play D&D after watching this movie!"
So, I'm going to be busy. I'm writing in sahuagin as the antagonists, so that should give you a slight clue as to what the movie might be about.
I heard that sleeping with producers is a great way to get ahead.
Not to worry if your a guy, a lot are gay!.
Good luck!
I don't think sleeping around is an option. If I can't get by on real talent, then it's not worth it to work the system.
There are other ways than getting into bed with producers.
Who are you again?
I'm the guy that gave the latest "rant" on PHB 1.
If you haven't seen it, then don't worry about it.I'm writing in sahuagin as the antagonists, so that should give you a slight clue as to what the movie might be about.
Oh don't worry, we'll be able recognize the movie as the one involved in the copyright infringement lawsuit with WotC.
He just declared his intention to infringe upon a WoTC owned intellectual property as part of a commercial endeavor on WoTC's own forums? Yeah, good job shooting yourself in the foot, bucko. Better hope it becomes a official D&D licensed movie, because changing the name and saying the resemblance is accidental is going to be rather hard, should they choose to take the effort to link your screen name to your screen play.
I'm writing in sahuagin as the antagonists, so that should give you a slight clue as to what the movie might be about.
Oh don't worry, we'll be able recognize the movie as the one involved in the copyright infringement lawsuit with WotC.
My screenplay came from shared culture (Plato and HP Lovecraft), and back into the shared culture it will go (CC-BY-SA). Copyright is an Antiquated 18th century concept of Government sponsored Censorship. Copyright is nothing more than a monopolized subsidy on publication.
After all, Boraxe, don't you sell all rights to a publisher when you try to get something published? And if you are paid royalties, isn't it abysmal? Say like around, oh, 1 cent? Sahuagin is a rip off of HP Lovecraft's Deep Ones. Seems though, that Shadow Over Innsmouth was published before 1923, it's not locked up under lock and key by some monpolist publisher.
But since I live on a planet with an internet, the entire Copyright Law should either be abolished or reformed. Say like 5 years granted, and then a tax which would geometrically increase every year after the first five years. After five years of Government Subsidized censorship, the piece that is copyrighted goes into the public domain so that everyone can create derivative works off of it. Dungeons and Dragons, Original Edition to 3rd Edition belongs in the public domain, and 4th edition should be CC-BY-SA. The only reason why the RIAA and the MPAA is suing little 13 year olds is not because they feel slighted, it's to maintain a mindset and a culture of permission, bucko. Copyright harms the Economy as it grants nothing more than a monopoly on what other people create. Copyright prevents copying and derivative works, and makes artists come up with original stuff -- which can be bad. Therefore, it stifles the content industry and sterilizes the well of creation. However, everything is a derivative copy of everything else.
Every sculpture and painting can be traced back to the original sculpture of the human being and the cave paintings. Every little invention and story can be traced back to the first storytellers and inventors. After all, the Atomic reactor is nothing new. Most of everything we have invented isn't really all that terribly new except for the Integrated Circuit. Copyright was not a Legal invention since Mankind first walked on this planet, Copyright is a recent legal invention out of the 15th Century when Merry Ol' England created the guild of Stationers to regulate the Printing Press to prevent Sedition, and then came into its modern form with the Statute of Anne. The Internet, being the MOST PERFECT copy machine ever devised by man, has made this law obsolete. In fact, the only way you can enforce Copyright on a planet with an Internet is to take away the first Amendment Right to free press, free speech, and a free internet.
Copyright only benefits publishers and does not benefit the Artist or the Author, period.
There, I've said my piece about this stupid, antiquated law. Anyone else want to accuse me of copyright infringement? IF you do, I can give you a link to a book you can all read and a link to a website that seriously questions why Copyright should even exist.
I'm just not sure how a law against you stealing my stuff counts as government censorship, but okay.
(Besides, nobody even said copyright law is good, they just said that it exists.)
I mean, hell, I'm all form altering copyright law so that Steamboat Willy finally goes into public domain, but just because Disney's abused the laws to their favor doesn't mean the entire system is broken.
I'm confused.
Are you challenging my First Amendment right to Free Internet?
Ok, while I do have views about why such a thing would be good and all that jazz...
bwuh? I'm not sure even Maggie Gallagher could work her way through the mental gymnastics necessary to find that constitutional right.
Are you challenging my First Amendment right to Free Internet?
Ok, while I do have views about why such a thing would be good and all that jazz...
bwuh? I'm not sure even Maggie Gallagher could work her way through the mental gymnastics necessary to find that constitutional right.
Bah.
I deleted that post since I thought it might be a bit on the mean side for me. I immediately realized that someone had obviously hit the quote button already, because that's how things work.
Are you challenging my First Amendment right to Free Internet?
Ok, while I do have views about why such a thing would be good and all that jazz...
bwuh? I'm not sure even Maggie Gallagher could work her way through the mental gymnastics necessary to find that constitutional right.
Bah.
I deleted that post since I thought it might be a bit on the mean side for me. I immediately realized that someone had obviously hit the quote button already, because that's how things work.
Don't worry about quotes anyway.
Now since this is the off topic tavern.
EE did not say this.
I'm confused. Saying that it's wrong to steal the beautiful work of a young starving artist and slapping it onto a mass produced clock without giving credit or dues to said starving artist counts as government censorship?
That's not Copyright Infringement. Taking someone elses' work and slapping it on a mass produced clock with out attributing the original artist is out and out fraud. Copyright Law doesn't protect the Artist's interests, laws against fraud do. Copyright Law protects the publisher's interest.
I mean, hell, I'm all form altering copyright law so that Steamboat Willy finally goes into public domain, but just because Disney's abused the laws to their favor doesn't mean the entire system is broken.
Actually, the Internet made the entire Copyright Law broken.
That's why they are trying to do this:
By the way, this video was made by Nina Paley for the Electronic Frontier Foundation's 20th Anniversary. I do not claim to have made this video, that would be fraud.
Don't worry about quotes anyway.
I just meant that deleting the post was pointless. Also, EE's post is now responding to something that is no longer there and looks weird.
That's not Copyright Infringement. Taking someone elses' work and slapping it on a mass produced clock with out attributing the original artist is out and out fraud.
Copyright is that thing that says the artist's work belongs to him/her. Without it, you can do whatever you want with anyone else's work anyway. That's what copyright is.
Actually, the Internet made the entire Copyright Law broken.
I can maybe see how the internet makes copyright law easier to break. I do not see how the internet makes it no longer a good idea.
In fact, seems like it's more important. If the only way to get to my work is to obtain a physical copy it's much harder to help yourself too without actually stealing physical goods. If someone can just scan it into her computer and post it on the internet for everyone else to take, I'm vulnerable.
Don't worry about quotes anyway.
I just meant that deleting the post was pointless. Also, EE's post is now responding to something that is no longer there and looks weird.That's not Copyright Infringement. Taking someone elses' work and slapping it on a mass produced clock with out attributing the original artist is out and out fraud.
Copyright is that thing that says the artist's work belongs to him/her. Without it, you can do whatever you want with anyone else's work anyway. That's what copyright is.Actually, the Internet made the entire Copyright Law broken.
I can maybe see how the internet makes copyright law easier to break. I do not see how the internet makes it no longer a good idea.
In fact, seems like it's more important. If the only way to get to my work is to obtain a physical copy it's much harder to help yourself too without actually stealing physical goods. If someone can just scan it into her computer and post it on the internet for everyone else to take, I'm vulnerable.
How are you vulnerable? Is she actually stealing anything from you? Information isn't property, it never was, since it exists purely as energy and not as a physical thing you can touch, feel, and smell You only see or hear it (unless you read braille). You still have your copy, you still have all your information. After all, copying isn't really theft.
Take Thomas Jefferson and what he wrote to Isaac McPherson in 1813:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
As for accusations of a monopoly, yes, Copyright allows monopoly to exist. A publisher holding a monopoly over a published work can legally withhold any copies of a work from the public and prevent copies of such work to be made. This is what happened when WotC legally stole the pdfs from being sold, making it so that we can only download them off of torrent sites.
It's happening to Mickey Mouse. Disney treats Mickey Mouse like a monopolized commodity. They take him out and produce a film every now and again to make sure he doesn't go out of the human consciousness. However, because they rarely ever produce Mickey Mouse films the Mouse has become a byword and a thing of insult.
Not only that, but a Publisher who holds a monopoly over a "property" can prevent new works from being created. There by creating thousands of ghost works -- works that will never be published. That, my friend, is CENSORSHIP. Pure and simple.
The only thing that is vulnerable on a planet with an internet is the Monopoly. After all, being the most perfect copy machine ever invented by Man, Everything on the Internet is pure, unadulterated energy in the form of little 1s and 0s. When the energy is copied from one computer to the next, it's copied across thousands of computers in the Internet. Therefore, there is always a computer somewhere -- a mainframe, a RAID Array, or a sub-mainframe, that has the information being copied.
However, the originating computer still has the original copy. But the copies are so perfect that they are identical to the original. So, Copyright and the Internet cannot exist together on the same planet. There is not enough room for an Internet and a Copyright Law. One of them must go in order for the other to survive. If you are Pro-Copyright, then you are Anti-Internet. Pure and simple.
That's not Copyright Infringement.
Really now? Copying, adapting, and distributing an artist's work without their permission isn't an infringement of their copyright? You have most curious ideas.
That's not Copyright Infringement.
Really now? Copying, adapting, and distributing an artist's work without their permission isn't an infringement of their copyright? You have most curious ideas.
Nope. It's pure fraud. If it's one thing that an Artist like myself has a monopoly over, its our names. A copyright is a fabricated monopoly.
My screenplay came from shared culture (Plato and HP Lovecraft)
It's Plato's Allegory of the Cave, right?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
I really don't think so.
Right... well, if this conversation is going to continue any, perhaps you'd be so kind as to actually define "copyright"? Because you're not actually using the same definition as the rest of the world.
Well, you asked. This comes from Question Copyright.org. And it includes references:
here is one group of people not shocked by the record industry's policy of suing randomly chosen file sharers: historians of copyright. They already know what everyone else is slowly finding out: that copyright was never primarily about paying artists for their work, and that far from being designed to support creators, copyright was designed by and for distributors — that is, publishers, which today includes record companies. But now that the Internet has given us a world without distribution costs, it no longer makes any sense to restrict sharing in order to pay for centralized distribution. Abandoning copyright is now not only possible, but desirable. Both artists and audiences would benefit, financially and aesthetically. In place of corporate gatekeepers determining what can and can't be distributed, a much finer-grained filtering process would allow works to spread based on their merit alone. We would see a return to an older and richer cosmology of creativity, one in which copying and borrowing openly from others' works is simply a normal part of the creative process, a way of acknowledging one's sources and of improving on what has come before. And the old canard that artists need copyright to earn a living would be revealed as the pretense it has always been.
None of this will happen, however, if the industry has its way. For three centuries, the publishing industry has been working very hard to obscure copyright's true origins, and to promote the myth that it was invented by writers and artists. Even today, they continue to campaign for ever stronger laws against sharing, for international treaties that compel all nations to conform to the copyright policies of the strictest, and most of all to make sure the public never asks exactly who this system is meant to help.
The reward for these efforts can be seen in the public's reaction to the file-sharing lawsuits. While most people agree that this time the industry went too far, the error is mainly treated as one of degree — as if the record companies had a valid point, but had merely resorted to excessive force in making it.
To read the true history of copyright is to understand just how completely this reaction plays into the industry's hands. The record companies don't really care whether they win or lose these lawsuits. In the long run, they don't even expect to eliminate file sharing. What they're fighting for is much bigger. They're fighting to maintain a state of mind, an attitude toward creative work that says someone ought to own products of the mind, and control who can copy them. And by positioning the issue as a contest between the Beleaguered Artist, who supposedly needs copyright to pay the rent, and The Unthinking Masses, who would rather copy a song or a story off the Internet than pay a fair price, the industry has been astonishingly successful. They have managed to substitute the loaded terms "piracy" and "theft" for the more accurate "copying" — as if there were no difference between stealing your bicycle (now you have no bicycle) and copying your song (now we both have it). Most importantly, industry propaganda has made it a commonplace belief that copyright is how most creators earn a living — that without copyright, the engines of intellectual production would grind to a halt, and artists would have neither means nor motivation to produce new works.
Yet a close look at history shows that copyright has never been a major factor in allowing creativity to flourish. Copyright is an outgrowth of the privatization of government censorship in sixteenth-century England. There was no uprising of authors suddenly demanding the right to prevent other people from copying their works; far from viewing copying as theft, authors generally regarded it as flattery. The bulk of creative work has always depended, then and now, on a diversity of funding sources: commissions, teaching jobs, grants or stipends, patronage, etc. The introduction of copyright did not change this situation. What it did was allow a particular business model — mass pressings with centralized distribution — to make a few lucky works available to a wider audience, at considerable profit to the distributors.
The arrival of the Internet, with its instantaneous, costless sharing, has made that business model obsolete — not just obsolete, but an obstacle to the very benefits copyright was alleged to bring society in the first place. Prohibiting people from freely sharing information serves no one's interests but the publishers'. Although the industry would like us to believe that prohibiting sharing is somehow related to enabling artists to make a living, their claim does not stand up to even mild scrutiny. For the vast majority of artists, copyright brings no economic benefits. True, there are a few stars — some quite talented — whose works are backed by the industry; these receive the lion's share of distribution investment, and generate a correspondingly greater profit, which is shared with the artist on better than usual terms because the artist's negotiating position is stronger. Not coincidentally, these stars are who the industry always holds up as examples of the benefits of copyright.
But to treat this small group as representative would be to confuse marketing with reality. Most artists' lives look nothing like theirs, and never will, under the current spoils system. That is why the stereotype of the impoverished artist remains alive and well after three hundred years.
The publishing industry's campaign to preserve copyright is waged out of pure self-interest, but it forces on us a clear choice. We can watch as most of our cultural heritage is stuffed into a vending machine and sold back to us dollar by dollar — or we can reexamine the copyright myth and find an alternative.
The first copyright law was a censorship law. It had nothing to do with protecting the rights of authors, or encouraging them to produce new works. Authors' rights were in no danger in sixteenth-century England, and the recent arrival of the printing press (the world's first copying machine) was if anything energizing to writers. So energizing, in fact, that the English government grew concerned about too many works being produced, not too few. The new technology was making seditious reading material widely available for the first time, and the government urgently needed to control the flood of printed matter, censorship being as legitimate an administrative function then as building roads.
The method the government chose was to establish a guild of private-sector censors, the London Company of Stationers, whose profits would depend on how well they performed their function. The Stationers were granted a royal monopoly over all printing in England, old works as well as new, in return for keeping a strict eye on what was printed. Their charter gave them not only exclusive right to print, but also the right to search out and confiscate unauthorized presses and books, and even to burn illegally printed books. No book could be printed until it was entered in the company's Register, and no work could be added to the Register until it had passed the crown's censor, or had been self-censored by the Stationers. The Company of Stationers became, in effect, the government's private, for-profit information police force [1].
The system was quite openly designed to serve booksellers and the government, not authors. New books were entered in the Company's Register under a Company member's name, not the author's name. By convention, the member who registered the entry held the "copyright", the exclusive right to publish that book, over other members of the Company, and the Company's Court of Assistants resolved infringement disputes [2].
This was not simply the latest manifestation of some pre-existing form of copyright. It's not as though authors had formerly had copyrights, which were now to be taken away and given to the Stationers. The Stationers' right was a new right, though one based on a long tradition of granting monopolies to guilds as a means of control. Before this moment, copyright — that is, a privately held, generic right to prevent others from copying — did not exist. People routinely printed works they admired when they had the chance, an activity which is responsible for the survival of many of those works to the present day. One could, of course, be enjoined from distributing a specific document because of its potentially libelous effect, or because it was a private communication, or because the government considered it dangerous and seditious. But these reasons are about public safety or damage to reputation, not about property ownership. There had also been, in some cases, special privileges (then called "patents") allowing exclusive printing of certain types of books. But until the Company of Stationers, there had not been a blanket injunction against printing in general, nor a conception of copyright as a legal property that could be owned by a private party.
For about a century and a third, this partnership worked well for the government and for the Stationers. The Stationers profited from their monopoly, and through the Stationers, the government exercised control over the spread of information. Around the end of the seventeenth century, however, owing to larger political changes, the government relaxed its censorship policies, and allowed the Stationers' monopoly to expire. This meant that printing would return to its former anarchical state, and was of course a direct economic threat to the members of the Company of Stationers, accustomed as they were to having exclusive license to manufacture books. Dissolution of the monopoly might have been good news for long-suppressed authors and independent printers, but it spelled disaster for the Stationers, and they quickly crafted a strategy to retain their position in the newly liberal political climate.
The Stationers based their strategy on a crucial realization, one that has stayed with publishing conglomerates ever since: authors do not have the means to distribute their own works. Writing a book requires only pen, paper, and time. But distributing a book requires printing presses, transportation networks, and an up-front investment in materials and typesetting. Thus, the Stationers reasoned, people who write would always need a publisher's cooperation to make their work generally available. Their strategy used this fact to maximum advantage. They went before Parliament and offered the then-novel argument that authors had a natural and inherent right of ownership in what they wrote, and that furthermore, such ownership could be transferred to other parties by contract, like any other form of property.
Their argument succeeded in persuading Parliament. The Stationers had managed to avoid the odium of censorship, as the new copyrights would originate with the author, but they knew that authors would have little choice but to sign those rights back over to a publisher for distribution. There was some judicial and political wrangling over the details, but in the end both halves of the Stationers' argument survived essentially intact, and became part of English statutory law. The first recognizably modern copyright, the Statute of Anne, was passed in 1709 and took effect in 1710.
The Statute of Anne is often held up by champions of copyright as the moment when authors were finally given the protection they had long deserved. Even today, it continues to be referenced both in legal arguments and in press releases from the publishing industry. But to interpret it as an authors' victory flies in the face of both common sense and historical fact [3]. Authors, having never had copyright, saw no reason now to suddenly demand the rather paradoxical power to prevent the spread of their own works, and did not do so. The only people threatened by the dissolution of the Stationers' monopoly were the Stationers themselves, and the Statute of Anne was the direct result of their lobbying and campaigning. In the memorable words of the contemporary Lord Camden, the Stationers "...came up to Parliament in the form of petitioners, with tears in their eyes, hopeless and forlorn; they brought with them their wives and children to excite compassion, and induce Parliament to grant them a statutory security." [4] To make their argument more palatable, they had proposed that copyright would originate with the author, as a form of property that could be sold to anyone — anticipating, correctly, that it would most often be sold to a printer.
This proposal was a shrewd tactical move, because one of Parliament's concerns was to prevent the re-establishment of a centralized monopoly in the book trade, with its attendant potential for a renewal of censorship by the crown. Benjamin Kaplan, professor of law emeritus at Harvard University and a respected copyright scholar, describes the Stationers position succinctly:
....The stationers made the case that they could not produce the fragile commodities called books, and thus encourage learned men to write them, without protection against piracy... There is an apparent tracing of rights to an ultimate source in the fact of authorship, but before attaching large importance to this we have to note that if printing as a trade was not to be put back into the hands of a few as subject of monopoly — if the statute was indeed to be a kind of "universal patent" — a [legal] draftsman would naturally be led to express himself in terms of rights in books and hence to initial rights in authors. A draftsman would anyway be aware that rights would usually pass immediately to publishers by assignment, that is, by purchase of the manuscripts as in the past. ... I think it nearer the truth to say that publishers saw the tactical advantage of putting forward authors' interests together with their own, and this tactic produced some effect on the tone of the statute.[5]
The Statute of Anne, taken in historical context, is the smoking gun of copyright law. In it we can see the entire apparatus of modern copyright, but in still-undisguised form. There is the notion of copyright as property, yet the property is really intended for publishers, not authors. There is the notion of benefitting society, by encouraging people to write books, but no evidence was offered to show that they would not write books without copyright. Rather, the Stationers' argument was that publishers could not afford to print books without protection from competition, and furthermore that printers could not be depended to reproduce works faithfully if given unfettered freedom to print. The corollary, they implied, was that without the prospect of reliable distribution, authors would produce fewer new works.
Their argument was not unreasonable, given the technology of the time. Making a perfect copy of a printed work required access to the original press and compositor, anyway; if reliable reproduction were to be encouraged, then a single-holder copyright system had a certain logic to it. And the publishers would now be effectively forced to pay authors in return for exclusive printing rights (although in fact the Stationers had sometimes payed authors even before, simply to guarantee the completion and delivery of a work). The authors who succeeded in selling this new right to printers had no particular motivation to complain — and naturally, we don't hear very much about the authors not so favored. The consolidation of author's copyright probably contributed to the decline of patronage as a source of income for writers [6], and even allowed some authors, though always a small minority, to support themselves solely from the royalties their publishers shared with them. The fact that a given copyright could only be held by one party at a time also helped prevent the proliferation of divergent variations, a problem that had vexed authors perhaps even more than plagiarism, as there was no easy method by which they could endorse or disclaim particular variations.
But the overall historical record is clear: copyright was designed by distributors, to subsidize distributors not creators.
Well, you asked.
And you chose to answer something else entirely.
So again. Would you care to define copyright? Not give a version of the history of the thing, but define the thing itself. Not a rant about cons or pros, claims of whether it's for publishers or artists, or considerations into the chilling effect that copyright law has on an artist who fears creating something too similar to other creators, but just a definition of copyright.
Can you do that? Without monologuing like a four-color comic villain?
Well, you asked.
And you chose to answer something else entirely.
So again. Would you care to define copyright? Not give a version of the history of the thing, but define the thing itself. Not a rant about cons or pros, claims of whether it's for publishers or artists, or considerations into the chilling effect that copyright law has on an artist who fears creating something too similar to other creators, but just a definition of copyright.
Can you do that? Without monologuing like a four-color comic villain?
A government subsidy on censorship that allow a favorable business model for the publisher and not the author or the artist.
From what I've read of this convo, the new guy seems to not know what plagerism is.
Talk about stacking the deck, no?
How are you vulnerable? Is she actually stealing anything from you?
I'm vulnerable to having my work stolen.
I find it interesting for a writer, an artist (you realize that a writer is type of artist, yes?), and a blog-owner (which is odd; I rarely see anyone refer to themselves as owning a blog in the first place) claiming that you can't own your work if it's non-tangible.
You realize that this makes it impossible to be an artist of most types (except maybe sculpting?) except as a hobby?
If you can help yourself to what I produce as long as it's not tangible, I can't get by producing it.
Oh, btw, let me know when you get done with that movie so that I can take it and make all the money.
Information isn't property, it never was, since it exists purely as energy and not as a physical thing you can touch, feel, and smell You only see or hear it (unless you read braille).
...
How come reading braille counts more than reading print or hearing speech?
And what difference does it make, anyway?
You still have your copy, you still have all your information. After all, copying isn't really theft.
I have that even if I don't write it down in the first place. I write it down so that I can sell copies. If you help yourself to them, I can't afford to make them in the first place.
So yeah, stealing what I've made is stealing. Also, water is wet.
As for accusations of a monopoly...
Who did the what-now? You're the only one who said anything about that.
Okay, a monopoly means that nobody else produces competing products.
Stealing my products and selling them yourself wouldn't be competing with me; making something in the same market and trying to attract the same customers is competing with me.
I don't hold a monopoly if I write about my characters and you don't. I hold a monopoly if I'm the only one writing about characters. You don't hold a monopoly on something that specific--you're the owner.
EDIT: I'm not saying current copyright laws are perfect. I haven't read through them in enough detail that I'd feel comfortable making that kind of commentary anyway. The idea of copyright, however, is completely necessary for artists of all kinds. And others who produce intangible things and information, like researchers.
My screenplay came from shared culture …
Immaterial. The name "Sahuagin" was created by TSR and the legal rights to it belong to WotC/Hasbro. Use it and they are well within their legasl rights to sue you. You can moralize and proselytize about it all you wish, it matters not one iota to the outcome of such a case.
A government subsidy on censorship that allow a favorable business model for the publisher and not the author or the artist.
Oh man, that's a good one! Copyright = the "right" to make "copies". Pretty simple, really. It is literally spelled out for you.
After all, Boraxe…bucko.
Sorry, but who in the hell do you think you are calling me "bucko"? You wanna retract that?
My screenplay came from shared culture (Plato and HP Lovecraft), and back into the shared culture it will go (CC-BY-SA). Copyright is an Antiquated 18th century concept of Government sponsored Censorship. Copyright is nothing more than a monopolized subsidy on publication ... choppy-chop-chop for sanity of readers
Interesting rant, but also wholly pointless. Whatever you feel about copyright doesn't mean squat. It still exists and you can still be sued for using IP that isn't yours. I mean, you could always use this stuff in court when you eventually find yourself there, sure. But it won't work.
Memo to me:
Add to bucket list --
1. Obtain copy of Elton74's screenplay
2. Film it myself, giving full authorship credit to Elton74, but no financial remuneration
3. ???
4. Profit!
My screenplay came from shared culture …
Immaterial. The name "Sahuagin" was created by TSR and the legal rights to it belong to WotC/Hasbro. Use it and they are well within their legasl rights to sue you. You can moralize and proselytize about it all you wish, it matters not one iota to the outcome of such a case.
Sahuagins are in the SRD though. I don't really understand that license, but doesn't it mean those are free to use?
They were in the first Final Fantasy and in it's remakes for sure (originally SAHAG, later Sahuagin).
Sahuagins are in the SRD though. I don't really understand that license, but doesn't it mean those are free to use?
In third-party D20 games, yes. The SRD does not extend to all media.
They were in the first Final Fantasy and in it's remakes for sure (originally SAHAG, later Sahuagin).
Apparently the Final Fantasy ripoff is called a "sahagin". Different, but close enough WotC could probably make a strong legal argument if they chose to pursue action. This is a bit different, though, than a film admittedly built around their IP.
Sahuagins are in the SRD though. I don't really understand that license, but doesn't it mean those are free to use?
In third-party D20 games, yes. The SRD does not extend to all media.They were in the first Final Fantasy and in it's remakes for sure (originally SAHAG, later Sahuagin).
Apparently the Final Fantasy ripoff is called a "sahagin". Different, but close enough WotC could probably make a strong legal argument if they chose to pursue action. This is a bit different, though, than a film admittedly built around their IP.
Thanks for clarifying that.
a person's exclusive right to reproduce, publish, or sell his or her original work of authorship (as a literary, musical, dramatic, artistic, or architectural work).
Entertaining thread is entertaining.
Memo to me:
Add to bucket list --
1. Obtain copy of Elton74's screenplay
2. Film it myself, giving full authorship credit to Elton74, but no financial remuneration
3. ???
4. Profit!
Why film it yourself? Elton74 obviously won't mind if you let him film it and then make a copy. As long as you give him credit for having writen it, you don't have to share in any of the profit with him. After all, it's just a copy.
Why film it yourself? Elton74 obviously won't mind if you let him film it and then make a copy. As long as you give him credit for having writen it, you don't have to share in any of the profit with him. After all, it's just a copy.
Even better, just sell the script to someone else to film and make some money off it. As long as you give credit to Elton74 it's all good, right?
Why film it yourself? Elton74 obviously won't mind if you let him film it and then make a copy. As long as you give him credit for having writen it, you don't have to share in any of the profit with him. After all, it's just a copy.
Even better, just sell the script to someone else to film and make some money off it. As long as you give credit to Elton74 it's all good, right?
That would be correct. Besides, who actually writes screen plays, books, songs... ect for money? It's the credit you really want, not the money.
Why film it yourself? Elton74 obviously won't mind if you let him film it and then make a copy. As long as you give him credit for having writen it, you don't have to share in any of the profit with him. After all, it's just a copy.
Even better, just sell the script to someone else to film and make some money off it. As long as you give credit to Elton74 it's all good, right?
That would be correct. Besides, who actually writes screen plays, books, songs... ect for money? It's the credit you really want, not the money.
There are other ways of making money.
questioncopyright.com/ . . . This store sells merchandise for Nina's "Sita Sings the Blues." T-Shirts, pendants, bumper stickers, camisoles, DVDs, CDs, prints from the movie. And Proceeds Support the Artist (in this case, Nina). Nina has put out Sita Sings the Blues for free on the Internet under CC-BY-SA. She has earned enough money to make a comfortable living from donations by her audience. She also makes speaking tours about her work and the people at QuestionCopyright.org has set up this store so that she can sell merchandise based off of her movie.
With her movie being distributed by the audience, the audience has directly given her support. She only claims natural rights over her own name, which is partly why the movie is released CC-BY-SA on the internet. You can download the movie and burn it on DVD and sell it. Although there is a little hiccup on selling it. You have to pay --
* Warner/Chapel Music, inc. 9 cents for the songs Am I blue, Here We Are, I've Got a Feeling that I'm Falling, Moanin' Low, If You Want the Rainbow (You Must Have the Rain), and Who's That Knocking at My Door
* EMI Music Publishing Limited $0 for Here We Are
* Sony ATV Music Publishing 30 cents for Daddy Won't You Please Come Home and What I Wouldn't Do For That Man
* Songwriter's Guild of America 5 cents for Mean to Me and If You Want the Rainbow (You Must Have the Rain)
* Williamson Music 23 cents for Lover Come Back To Me and The Song Is Ended
* Cromwell Music, Inc 7 cents for Mean to Me
* Memory Lane Music Group 4 cents for Mean to Me
* Bug Music 9 cents for Mean to Me and If You Want the Rainbow (You Must Have the Rain)
That is for Annette Hanshaw's songs, which are owned not by Hanshaw's Estate -- but the companies which I listed. Now tell me again, why do you support Copyright when we can't even listen to songs written and sung in 1927?
Somebody asked for the definition for copyright [...]
Actually, I was asking for his definition, as it had become clear he wasn't on the same page as the rest of the world.
Why film it yourself? Elton74 obviously won't mind if you let him film it and then make a copy. As long as you give him credit for having writen it, you don't have to share in any of the profit with him. After all, it's just a copy.
Right! A much better idea.
Even better, just sell the script to someone else to film and make some money off it. As long as you give credit to Elton74 it's all good, right?
I like how you think.
There are other ways of making money.
Booorrriiinnnggg.
These other ideas sound like much more fun.
Somebody asked for the definition for copyright [...]
Actually, I was asking for his definition, as it had become clear he wasn't on the same page as the rest of the world.
Do you ever get the feeling that he isn't the only one? I swear this is going to turn into a freewill-like thread.
I swear this is going to turn into a freewill-like thread.
Here you are.
oh.. you said free will. Not free .... Um... my bad. ;)
Just wanted to reiterate: feelings of dislike about copyright law have no use whatsoever when you're in trial for violating copyright law. If I get popped for doin' 45 in a 35, I can explain to the judge all I want about how the limit there really should be 45 - citing all sorts of blogs and opinion pieces published all over the 'net - and it won't mean a damn thing. The law is the law, the judge rules by the law and I will not only face a fine but court costs as well. So yeah, inspired railing against copyright law is in no way an adequate rebuttal to statements saying you'll be in violation of copyright law. Duh.
Aww ****, ya'all. The whale done hit the fan now.
Just wanted to reiterate: feelings of dislike about copyright law have no use whatsoever when you're in trial for violating copyright law. If I get popped for doin' 45 in a 35, I can explain to the judge all I want about how the limit there really should be 45 - citing all sorts of blogs and opinion pieces published all over the 'net - and it won't mean a damn thing. The law is the law, the judge rules by the law and I will not only face a fine but court costs as well. So yeah, inspired railing against copyright law is in no way an adequate rebuttal to statements saying you'll be in violation of copyright law. Duh.
In other words... Tell it to the judge.
In other words... Tell it to the judge.
You know what would be fun? Having Elton define natural laws. I'd like to see how anyone claims natural laws over their creation, and how those natural laws prevent others from taking credit for the origional work.
So I could say babies come out of women because I made it that way and not God? Or am I misinterpreting your statement?
I wish I knew. I'm refering to Elton74's when he said...
There are other ways of making money.
questioncopyright.com/ . . . This store sells merchandise for Nina's "Sita Sings the Blues." T-Shirts, pendants, bumper stickers, camisoles, DVDs, CDs, prints from the movie. And Proceeds Support the Artist (in this case, Nina). Nina has put out Sita Sings the Blues for free on the Internet under CC-BY-SA. She has earned enough money to make a comfortable living from donations by her audience. She also makes speaking tours about her work and the people at QuestionCopyright.org has set up this store so that she can sell merchandise based off of her movie.
With her movie being distributed by the audience, the audience has directly given her support. She only claims natural rights over her own name, which is partly why the movie is released CC-BY-SA on the internet. You can download the movie and burn it on DVD and sell it. Although there is a little hiccup on selling it. You have to pay --
I'm not really sure what natural laws he refers to, so I guess you can make the claim that babies come from women because you said so.
Your guess as to what is meant will probably make more sense than anything Elton74 is going to say.
In other words... Tell it to the judge.
You win.
I do not want to derail this thread…
Liar.
That's not Copyright Infringement. Taking someone elses' work and slapping it on a mass produced clock with out attributing the original artist is out and out fraud. Copyright Law doesn't protect the Artist's interests, laws against fraud do. Copyright Law protects the publisher's interest.
As someone who has dealt with such, this is incorrect. Copyright Law protects the holder of the copyright. In writing, it is OFTEN the publisher that applies for such, but it is NOT always the case.
For more: see for yourself. Or, if you have the temperment/training to deal with "legalese", read for yourself (note: PDF 1.6 MB, 350 pages).
I do not want to derail this thread, but the title made me think that this was going to be about homosexual experimentations.
Damn it... made me spill my drink
I do not want to derail this thread, but the title made me think that this was going to be about homosexual experimentations.
I never got that kind of offer. It was sad. I was kinda hopin', but it just didn't happen.
I do not want to derail this thread, but the title made me think that this was going to be about homosexual experimentations.
Why must the experimentations be homsexual in nature?
Could the OP not have a friend of the opposite sex?
Actually, it made me think that the OP had a friend who was getting what he/she wanted via coercion and likely death threats, but your reading is good too.
I never got that kind of offer. It was sad. I was kinda hopin', but it just didn't happen.
I did! From a creepy, supposedly straight man about a decade older than me who saw my profile on a dating site (which specifically mentioned I was looking for actual dating and a relationship, but I don't think he read that).
After I turned him down, he became upset and told me that "All you [slur]s don't like casual sex!" which came off like he meant for me to be highly offended by the suggestion.
Apparently I wasn't the first to reject him.
I'm writing in sahuagin as the antagonists, so that should give you a slight clue as to what the movie might be about.
Oh don't worry, we'll be able recognize the movie as the one involved in the copyright infringement lawsuit with WotC.
My screenplay came from shared culture (Plato and HP Lovecraft), and back into the shared culture it will go (CC-BY-SA). Copyright is an Antiquated 18th century concept of Government sponsored Censorship. Copyright is nothing more than a monopolized subsidy on publication.
~~~~~~~~~
You're pretty funny.
The truth is, if WoTC thinks they've got a case against you they'll have the lawyers bleed you dry in court while you rant on about the shoulds etc of your opinion on copyright law.
Doesn't matter if you're right. Odds are you'll run out of $ & fall silent by default.....
The Copyright Law is an abomination to human progress. That is a verifiable truth. Two economists have done the research on this law, along with several lawyers. Their conclusions are all the same. Current U.S. Copyright Law hinders than rather encourages human academic, artistic, and industrial progress. I am convinced that everyone who stands behind this Law favors something that grinds human progress to a halt rather than push it along.
On a planet with an Internet, this Law's purpose is very very clear. At first it was to protect the State. Now it's purpose is to protect an inadaquate, antiquated business model. With the Internet, new Business Models can be found to replace the old one that would produce the same results. However, no publishing business is willing to risk a new business model to replace the old.
But since you are all to quick to fight for a law that is unjust, I'll just deprive you of what could have been a good movie.
SO THERE!
Speaking as someone who was seriously looking into writing as a career at one point, I like copyright law. It isn't perfect, no. But I like that it is there. The problem people have with copyright law today is that artists sell the rights to their work to a corporation, and the corporation gets nutty with enforcement.
I used to be a staunch defender of Copyright Law. Until the Open Game License. You should look into Creative Commons. It can give you the protection you need . . . that of your own name; but you'll be able to give certain allowances. May I suggest the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 U.S. License?
Creative Commons will allow you to compete while we are still living on a planet with an Internet without joining the fight to make a mockery of the Constitution's allowance to protect an Author's or Artist's right to his work for limited times. The Copyright Maximalists are fighting for forever minus one day.
But seriously, most people here seemed to be more acknowledging the existence of copyright laws than actually defending them.
SO THERE!
...?
You are aware of the old adage about winning fights on the internet and the comparison to competing in the special Olympics, yes?
Awww shiz he used all caps. Dang Escher you got tis-old!
Dude. My Screenplay is Ghost Work status right now out of spite for all of you. My movie will only exist in my mind right now, not in yours.
The Copyright Law is an abomination to human progress. That is a verifiable truth. Two economists have done the research on this law, along with several lawyers. Their conclusions are all the same. Current U.S. Copyright Law hinders than rather encourages human academic, artistic, and industrial progress. I am convinced that everyone who stands behind this Law favors something that grinds human progress to a halt rather than push it along.
On a planet with an Internet, this Law's purpose is very very clear. At first it was to protect the State. Now it's purpose is to protect an inadaquate, antiquated business model. With the Internet, new Business Models can be found to replace the old one that would produce the same results. However, no publishing business is willing to risk a new business model to replace the old.
But since you are all to quick to fight for a law that is unjust, I'll just deprive you of what could have been a good movie.
SO THERE!
This is truly a sad day...
on a side note, comedy central is playing Baywatch...
I find trademark laws to be more draconian and inane than copyright laws. Take a certain cable products company known for their monstrous efforts to claim a common word as their trademark.
Dude. My Screenplay is Ghost Work status right now out of spite for all of you. My movie will only exist in my mind right now, not in yours.
The Copyright Law is an abomination to human progress. That is a verifiable truth. Two economists have done the research on this law, along with several lawyers. Their conclusions are all the same. Current U.S. Copyright Law hinders than rather encourages human academic, artistic, and industrial progress. I am convinced that everyone who stands behind this Law favors something that grinds human progress to a halt rather than push it along.
On a planet with an Internet, this Law's purpose is very very clear. At first it was to protect the State. Now it's purpose is to protect an inadaquate, antiquated business model. With the Internet, new Business Models can be found to replace the old one that would produce the same results. However, no publishing business is willing to risk a new business model to replace the old.
But since you are all to quick to fight for a law that is unjust, I'll just deprive you of what could have been a good movie.
SO THERE!
We weren't defending the law. We were explaining how it could be used against you and how your feelings about it mean nothing in that regard.
So there.
But since you are all to quick to fight for a law that is unjust, I'll just deprive you of what could have been a good movie.
SO THERE!
You cannot possibly expect anyone here to actually buy this nonsense, can you? That you have an opportunity to produce a script for a major Hollywood film but you refuse to do so in order to teach a lesson (the punishment being that we don't get to see how awesome your movie is ) to a bunch of anonymous strangers on the internet who warned you about possible legal ramifications for using copyrighted material?
If so then you don't need D&D, cos clearly your everyday world is a much more elaborate and entertaining fantasy than anything to do with mere wizards and dragons.
Later on, I thought to myself, "But I'm a musician and writer! I write novels and screenplays and comic books! Shouldn't I be terrified of the man keeping me down?"
Then, I replied to myself, "No, don't worry too much about it. Just keep on doing your thing."
Then, I replied back to myself, "Yeah, sounds good."
SO THERE!
We weren't defending the law. We were explaining how it could be used against you and how your feelings about it mean nothing in that regard.
Well, to be honest, Z_B, I was. I already hold a patent, and am currently designing a model for a new form of MMORPG. As it is in the design phase, the easiest form of protection for ME (personally, not the state, not some publisher, or some huge corporation), to protect the design is to go the copyright route. (it's why I happen to have a link to the law handy). Moreover, the time frame involved leaves more than ample room for me to both complete the actual construction of the game, AND benefit from any that may wish to use the paradigm.