Home » General Chat » Circular File » Copyright laws (split from Serial help)
| Re: Serial help |
Tue, 21 March 2006 19:04   |
|
 EDog |
 | Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 417
Registered: November 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Tue, 21 March 2006 13:22 |
As for copyright thing ... i understand such laws exist because in lot of countries people find it unfair when author does not get fame and profit from fruits of his work.
|
As someone who is trying very hard to make an honest buck as a writer, I must say that I tend to side with the copyright owners here. I know that once my work is published, there will be a percentage of readers who obtain their copies illegally, and I will not receive one cent of compensation. And I know that I have to realistically accept a certain level of this, it bothers me on a purely selfish level, and here's why...
(boring numbers stuff follows. Oh, wait, you all are number crunchers so you might find this much more fascinating than I do...)
My manuscript, Propane Jockeys, is approximately 56,000 words long. I wrote it at an average rate of 1,000 words per hour, so it's fair to assume that I spent 56 hours of my life writing it. It's also realistic to assume that I spent an additional 44 hours in editing and rewrites, so let's make it a nice round 100 hours to write a short novel.
The publisher currently looking at Propane Jockeys will sell it with a cover price of $9 to $15, of which I will receive $1 per copy.
Assuming my time is worth what my daytime employer pays me, I would need to sell 1,400 copies of my book merely to "break even" for the time I spent in writing it.
To match the income I make at my regular day job, I would need to sell in the neighborhood of 42,000 copies of my book in one year. Wow, that would be nice, wouldn't it?
But if one person buys my book, then scans it and posts it on Kazaa or bittorrent or something where anyone could download it, I could be losing out on hundreds or thousands of dollars in income.
The simple fact is that those who create and/or own copyrights are dependent upon their commissions/percentages for income, and piracy hits them right in the pocketbook.
Just my .02.
EDog
http://ianthealy.com
Born, grew up, became an adventurer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Serial help |
Tue, 21 March 2006 20:11 |
|
| mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| EDog wrote on Tue, 21 March 2006 18:04 |
The simple fact is that those who create and/or own copyrights are dependent upon their commissions/percentages for income, and piracy hits them right in the pocketbook.
Just my .02.
EDog
|
Agreed, but not really applicable to this situation.
Let's suppose that you sold your rights to this book, it's been published and sold a fair amount. Let's also say that the publisher thinks it has run it's route, and so it is no longer in print, and won't be back. I want to buy a new copy, but it's not in print. Even though the publisher knows it could sell a few more copies, it decides not to print another batch for whatever reason. I want to buy a new copy, but can't. I still want to read it, but there is no recourse save buying a copy from some used bookstore (you get no money), going to the library (you get no money), download it off the net (you get no money). So, would you feel the same way in that situation?
I am probably not in the public majority, because I don't mind puchasing every book and computer game that I read and play. Call it a quirk, but I *want* the authors I like, and buy from, to continue writing. I feel compelled to buy the material I consume so that they can afford to continue writing books and code. However, the situation at hand is very different.
I'm certainly not advocating piracy here, but be realistic. If Empire is going to keep stars on a shelf, and no one else steps forward announcing that we are approaching some sort of contractual time limit where Mcbride reverts back to primary owner of the game, and he can start selling the game again, then whats the big whohaw? In this situation, I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over someone figuring out how to keep the game alive, for those who want to play it.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Tue, 21 March 2006 20:36 |
|
| NingunOtro |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: September 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium | |
|
Yeah, friend
This is about the only reason why democracy stinks ... ethics and reason are always outnumbered by ignorance and greed.
I wouldn't care about your lack of ethics if a game serial number was all this is about, but there is no dipswitch on your moral code to disable it in just some cases and behave like a saint in all others. If you don't care when it is easy, I can't trust you to abide by it when it gets tough.
And getting tougher is all RDL is about nowadays.
So, knightlike, yes ... rare enough a breed today to be an ignorants laugh.
If we were esteemed intelligent 'enough', they would have contacted us.
If we can not find them, either we are not smart enough, or they are smarter at hiding.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Serial help |
Tue, 21 March 2006 23:40 |
|
| Madman |
 | Officer Cadet 1st Year |
Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand | |
|
One of the problems on this thread is that some of the posters are confusing the law and ethics, where the two are often quite different.
The law is the rules we have to live by on fear of penalty, such as the copyright laws, the requirement to pay taxes, not killing anyone, or "Red cars can not drive down Lake Street" (the fact that a law isn't enforced doesn't mean it's not a law - in fact they can be the worst kind, as selectively enforced laws can be used to victimise or discriminate). Law is ideally an attempt to codify some shared ethics, but is often more about power.
Ethics is (and I don't have a definition I'm happy with, but this is the best I can do) a sense of what is helpful or harmful to society (most definitions seem to talk about 'right' and 'wrong'). Ethics is about personal responsibility.
Those in power (either political or economic) would like to try and paint law and ethics as being the same thing. For instance with copyright law which (was originally intended to promote innovation and creativity and thus benefit society, in the USA anyway), various organisations (such as the RIAA and MPAA) have successfully lobbied to extend it to time periods way beyond it's original purpose, and then make loud noises about 'piracy'. As an artist, would I really be more creative because copyright lasts for 95 years rather than 14? (time may vary depending on country). The loudest voices of course are the middle-men who don't really create anything but pocket most of the money. One thing that really obviously stinks was that they made such extensions retroactive - does it really help society for 'Winnie the Pooh" (published in the 1920's) to be under copyright until 2026? Is that going to help A. A. Milne write any more books? (he died 50 years ago).
To drag this back on topic, consider the case of Stars!.
The law is pretty clear - it is a violation (in most countries) to copy or modify the program without permission until something like about 2090, or probably longer as they keep increasing the copyright length.
To me, the ethics of it is also fairly clear - up until late last year when it stopped being sold, my ethical position was pretty much the same as the legal position - I want to play a full game, I buy it. Now however (barring some sort of arrangement that Ron is trying to make with the Jeff's), the position is quite different - I can't buy a copy even if I want to (except second-hand), and there is no path that I'm going to spend mony on Stars! that gets it back to the original creators. I don't see any reason that copyright should exceed availability.
Ethically I wouldn't have a problem with modifying Stars! or generating serials to make it playable for new players, as long as we first waited until we were certain that it wasn't going to somehow become available through the creators again. The only reason I'd _not_ get involved in such things is some measures would be breaking the law, and hence more trouble than it's worth in the unlikely case I got penalized for it.
Ethics can sometimes exceed the law - it's partly my sense of ethics that kept me from working on FreeStars until Stars! had become unavialable, even though I don't think there are any legal issues.
Good on sites like The-Underdogs ... they aren't costing anyone anything, and make available things that would otherwise disappear (to no-one's benefit). I've noticed that where something is still available, they provide a link to it instead of a download.
Morality is something that I regard as being quite different again to law and ethics, but I'm not going to even go there.
[Updated on: Wed, 22 March 2006 00:48] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Serial help |
Wed, 22 March 2006 00:09 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
on fear of penalty... The law is pretty clear - it is a violation (in most countries) to copy or modify the program without permission until something like about 2090, or probably longer as they keep increasing the copyright length.
|
Following that logic it is a violation to record shows using a VCR or tape stuff from library using a cassette. And when these technologies came out, there were strong assertions that such was true.
Part of law is dictated by precidents in court, especially supreme courts. So for example supreme court of US in discussions seem to say they don't want to punish people for using VCR or recording music copy from library.
In canada, the recent ruling that said downloads of mp3s are legal was in part based on precidents of stuff like VCR recording of shows being considered legal. (And one could make an mp3 horde from high quality radio)
You say the law is pretty clear, is it not then also clear about VCR taping being illegal following your logic?
IMO court is final arbitrator of legallity. And one yardstick they seem to use, which was also brought out in my quote of berne convention is "unreasonable harm" to a copyright holder.
If you can find any case of a court ruling against someone who distributes abandonware, let me know.
[Updated on: Wed, 22 March 2006 00:27] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Wed, 22 March 2006 00:42 |
|
| Madman |
| Officer Cadet 1st Year |
Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand | |
|
| multilis wrote on Wed, 22 March 2006 17:09 |
Following that logic it is a violation to record shows using a VCR or tape stuff from library using a cassette. And when these technologies came out, there were strong assertions that such was true.
<snip>
You say the law is pretty clear, is it not then also clear about VCR taping being illegal following your logic?
|
Well, in New Zealand, my understanding is that it _is_ technically illegal - we don't have exceptions for 'fair use' that you have in the US and Canada. Nearly everyone does it though, and I've never heard of it being enforced. Many countries do have specific exceptions for 'fair use'.
Your example is irrelevant, because there isn't much way 'fair use' is going to apply to finding new ways for people to play Stars! with serials no longer purchasable.
Oh, and I'm not a lawyer, so maybe the law isn't as clear as I think - let's hope anyway 
| Quote: |
IMO court is final arbitrator of legallity. And one yardstick they seem to use, which was also brought out in my quote of berne convention is "unreasonable harm" to a copyright holder.
|
Well, good if it works - I'd hate to be the person arguing this in court though. It might also vary by country. I think you'd also be in the position of having to prove that they didn't suffer unreasonable harm, rather than them proving that they did.
| Quote: |
If you can find any case of a court ruling against someone who distributes abandonware, let me know.
|
I don't know of any court ruling in favour of an abandonware distributor either.
The reason that there isn't such a case (that I know of) is that usually just the legal threat is enough to shut a site down. That can be a nasty misuse of the law - when legal action is so costly that right or wrong, people give in to threats.
I think there _should_ be a legal exception for abandonware similar to the 'fair use' that some countries have (this would bring the law more into line with my sense of ethics). I'm also sure this is not the case, at least not in any Western country.
[Updated on: Wed, 22 March 2006 00:47] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Serial help |
Wed, 22 March 2006 02:13 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
because there isn't much way 'fair use'
|
I can give lots of examples where courts can circumvent what you may consider logical. Technically taping music from library does not fall under fair usage if you want, yet supreme court won't call illegal. Many personal uses of VCR don't fall under "time shifting" logic of supreme court, yet doubt they would ever call illegal.
Technically it should be illegal for insurance companies to charge males more OR legal for employers to pay female employees less at times due to statistical reasons (like average strength).
What is really legal or illegal is often dictated by what society accepts at time. A court will often find ways to not offend large groups of people. And what the court rules, especially supreme court is the final verdict of the law.
On comments of underdogs.org no longer listing some software... if they get a request by copyright holder, then it ISN'T abandonware from my perspective.
[Updated on: Wed, 22 March 2006 02:21] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Serial help |
Wed, 22 March 2006 02:43 |
|
|
|
Just FYI Home of the Underdogs is down.. or rather the domain registration has lapsed.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Wed, 22 March 2006 09:49 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Copyright owner cannot sue someone into court without requesting to stop distributing their material
|
But they can then sue... for past damages before time they requested the game to stop being distributed. (I take abandonware label as meaning copyright holder does not appear to care about his software).
Look at examples of mp3 horders being sued. They don't just say "quit downloading mp3s" and see if the user will comply before sueing.
| Quote: |
the domain registration has lapsed
|
It appears from whois lookup that underdogs has just renewed his domain for a year so likely it will be back up in few days.
| Quote: |
put together multilis talks and yours then seems that getting credit and profit is unfair
|
Not sure how you link me to this conclusion. My point from Berne Convention and discussions in court is "unreasonably hurting" abillity of copyright holder to make profit is "unfair".
[Updated on: Wed, 22 March 2006 10:13] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Copyright laws |
Wed, 22 March 2006 16:33 |
|
|
|
By the way, anyone looking for "The Home of the Underdogs" - it's currently accessible from: http://209.120.136.195/ (and it's domain name will be associated with it again soon, apparently the billing details for the owner changed, so ISP redirected the site until he updated the details (doh!))
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Copyright laws |
Wed, 22 March 2006 17:50 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Anything else you needed to know about copyright law?
|
Is it legal to borrow a CD from the library and make a copy onto a cassette in the US?
Is it legal to tape a show using a VCR and allow a friend to borrow the tape after in the US?
Since a copyright holder can sue, even if the abandonware site complies with cease distributing request (example suits of MP3 horders), do you have any example of such occuring and the result thus being tested in court?
Are you a judge on a supreme court of a member country of the Berne convention treaty?
Do you know what clause 2 of the Berne convention means?
[Updated on: Wed, 22 March 2006 17:51] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Wed, 22 March 2006 20:50 |
|
| NingunOtro |
| Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: September 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium | |
|
Oh yeah, very clearly you stated your own OPINION on a few facts. Far from objective and well-documented though. Probably just the version YOU feel most comfortable with.
I am just a logical thinker (if biased, let it be towards respect for ethics), no lawyer, so I will just give my own opinion, which stands only for the value you are willing to asign to the ideas expressed, as I have no coercitive powers whatsoever based on anything else than the credit that the mere ideas deserve from any of you.
1) Any human law, like any law of physics, should be an template as close as possible to describing the real thing, for brevity's sake so that we can use the law as a shortcut when arguing about facts. This to avoid going through empirical proof construction sessions each and everytime we have an argument about facts. Law describes for example murder as a means of avoiding philosophical debate every time such kind of act is to be punished and diversity of criteria in doing so. More so, jurisprudence is a shortcut for reuse of similar argumentation already used somewhere before.
The lack of resemblance between law and reason is not coincidental at all, it merely shows the extent of human perversity.
2) In Spain, we have private copying exemption too, ... and its logic stinks. The levy on blank digital media is a clear example of human perversity, as it makes everybody pay tribute to an often unrelated minority. I pay undiscriminated tribute to the copyright holders association, to burn digital pictures I shot myself (and some tried without luck so far to get it back argueing that they were the authors this reward is intended for, talking about lack of logic!), or to burn the downloaded ISO of a Creative Commons content or any Free Software like a Linux distro. Why, in my quest for freedom, I have to pay anything to people that have no right to anything mine?
3) Whenever I am a bit distracted and leave my favorite cd on top of the stove, I can not turn it in for a refund or have it replaced for free, nor does it make legal any copy of my friends original I make to replace it.
4) Stars! files are freely downloadable from various places on the internet. The only real proof of the fact that you have complied with copyright law stipulations is the possession of an unique serial number obtained through an official seller (with your personal data on their records as proof, of course). True transfer from one person to another should theoretically include a written warrant stating the data of the original owner and the data of the new owner, signed and dated by the original owner. Doubts about the likeliness of an infraction being tracked down and punished does not render the action legal, it merely states the lack of moral and ethical standards of those willing to take the chance.
5) Legal, moral or ethical perversity, or lack of profit in the pursuit of an otherwise legitimate right, is no justification or legalisation for no matter what action you wrongly think have the "right" to execute. The fact that nobody sues you for copying a CD for instance, is just an suitable ethical trap to prevent you from having any right to sue some smarter guy that is more creative in pocketing a few millions of taxpayer dollars. It suits them well to make you into a rat without arguments that cheaply.
You still think you know anything about the real thing?
P.S.: Though this all might seem off-topic to some, I believe it to be right on target, but I am not willing to have a fight on the issue with anybody if you happen to believe otherwise.
If we were esteemed intelligent 'enough', they would have contacted us.
If we can not find them, either we are not smart enough, or they are smarter at hiding.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 02 14:14:08 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Now if someone comes and tells them that such thing is theft of intellectual property ... then it probably conflicts with local culture.
Then there cannot exist court case of abandonware for your taste. 
Why is it some people are always forced to state explicitly what should have been obvious under normal circumstances? 
