Ah. That's a good point. was it the PM Lord North and some in parliament that wanted to continue the war after Yorktown? Anyone who is more versed in the British side of this story fill the blanks for me please. I pretty much understand the usual highlight reel and the factual bits from '1776'MB202 said:
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of that isn't coincidential either. For example, here is a chart [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=intellectual+property%2C+copyright&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cintellectual%20property%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccopyright%3B%2Cc0] about the occurences of the phrase "intellectual Property", and how unlike the actual centuries-old legal definition of copyright, it's pretty much an ammunition of the recent digital age copyright debates.Banzaiman said:
Well, I'm not against copyright. Guess why?Deadagent said:
Yet it couldn't have been published without Telltale's permission. If anything, you are demonstrating my point, this is an example of too much copyright control, that the existence of a quite "original" story like that is still depending on other publishers' permission.Banzaiman said:
And I haven't said anything about MY hypothetical Spiderman comic not having satirical tone.Banzaiman said:
It is "fanfiction" by the virtue of being legally unpublishable, not by a real measurment of failing to be a creative work. I could name hundreds of other examples of public domain or licensed stories written by someone else than the IP creator, that are no more "original" than even the average fanfiction, they are merely more official.Banzaiman said:
I don't consider such people to be fans. Why wouldn't you want your favorite band to enjoy success? That way others get to enjoy their music, too. To me, they just want to feel special and have something others don't.MB202 said:
If I had a 5 cents (living in europe) everytime someone used this argument.Kmadden2004 said:
Im not here to please you, I'm here to tell the truth as I see it.
I never proposed to Abolish the system completely, Im proposing the return to the 28 year model.
I'm just gonna put this out there: No it hasn't. Never, in the history of ever has copyright law prevented theft. It has given you ways to punish people for the theft, or the belief that maybe it would prevent theft, but it hasn't. If you find people trading your work online, the theft has already happened. Now all you can do is file a DMCA if you're in the US, or whatever relevant law in your home country to get it taken down. Copyrights and patents are all over the place in the world, and yet ideas and content are stolen every single day. Copyright laws are basically a warm blanket to wrap yourself in and hope they are working. But we live in the real world.Kmadden2004 said:
Wow, that's quite a chip on your shoulder, kid.Deadagent said:
Whoa he's not saying copyright should be thrown out all together. It's current form not adapting to way people create is bs. It's backwards thinking. Because on every economic level we're not protected. At least a more accessible and easy licensing communication system should be forged to ensure everyone's getting paid, when ideas are copied transformed and reproduced. but that the public domain doesn't remain stagnant because large corporate entities want additional decades of limits to material you want to appropriate in reasonable and economically harmless levels. If you checked the 'Everything is a Remix' link and saw the fourth video you'd see the problem is that it's getting to the point that it services market disputes, and even sample trolls and patent trolls that exist only to digging through all sorts of published creative properties and make money off random lawsuits When they haven't put the work in either. Thousands of songs are painstakingly constructed from scales and rhythm. Some dont take more than a few hours in the studio and mixing and mastering tricks. Who gets the lionshare of that effort and argue even more about copyright? People selling marketing and promotion. Some (not all) but some who don't understand their artist's true intention, who don't necessarily contribute enough to the forging of creations None of us likes people taking their ideas but how much longer after our natural lives should they service only us, and how long will it be before real world concepts, (not just old media ones) become off limits for common commercial artworks, and who will own those properties.Kmadden2004 said:
But it really doesn't, theoretically it should, but in reality it only protects as much as you can defend it and 9 times out of 10 if some one steals your work it will most likely cost you more to protect your work then simply just letting it go.Kmadden2004 said:
That's kind of the thing, though. The ability to make "whatever they want" should be about creative ideas, their own concepts, even if it's somewhat similar to other works. What it shouldn't include is "using someone else's characters and world for your own work just because you like them."Deadagent said:
Well, as I've both been there and done that, I can't hold it against you.Akichi Daikashima said:
Thanks for the laugh and/or ego boost. >.>shirkbot said:
Music industry didnt want to allow change. look what happened. We are coming to a point where sharing games and movies onver internet is as easy as songs - couple minutes of download and its there. The whole copyright debacle is final trampling of a dieing elephant. it may take 4 lions with it when it falls but its still dead. They will either have to change or die. there is no third option unless you think people are going to live in dystopia so easily.SILENTrampancy said:
You said you support copyright, therefore you think you are special and deserve special privileges (such as monopoly on your work). Im not saying you shouldnt argue what your arguing about or anything but at least not be a hypocrite about it. If you are arguing that you deserve special treatment then admit that you think you are special.Kmadden2004 said:
