Spoiler

*
**
Both of these mainly apply to programs that do relatively simple tasks (or happen to be open source ***), and for which free ones might exist. Same with artwork. My main issue here is with stock art, though, and more specifically, single-color stock vectors, and even more specifically, of things that probably can't even legitimately be copyrighted. I am pissed-off at how many of these I find when searching for reference materials or even ready-to use graphics. Sorry, but Egyptian Hieroglyphs, if they were copyrighted, belong to the Ancient Egyptians! (This is one of many things I needed some quick and decent ref material, and found more extremely low-res stock art than ANYTHING ELSE)

***
I found a JavaScript Library/script one time. Was free to use non-commercially, and they honestly expected people to pay a license fee or something for any commercial uses of it. I was going to use it non-commercially, but decided, thinking ahead, if I ever used it commercially...no. Needless to say, I continued searching for scripts to do what I needed.
I can justify paying to use artwork commercially. I can justify paying for a closed-source library to develop my commercial application. But something that's nothing more than a plaintext script file that was provided for download in its full, original form...EXCUSE ME? How they'd even manage to enforce this in the first place is beyond me.

(03-27-2016, 11:18 AM)DarkGrievous7145 Wrote: I don't recall mention feeling cheated, although I kinda do with the stock art and ALWAYS finding it when I need some quick reference or free to use. The bulk of it uses designs that technically can't be copyrighted, too.

Equating it to theft still isn't valid, though. And again, loss of profits is a major stress of the actual situation. Then the big companies go and make these DRM's, or do other anti-piracy shit, and piss everyone off, including their legit customers, and woder why everyone hates them.

In a world where most of the games and movies are crap, no sense in renting that majority of movies anymore. So, regardless of having the money or not, if it's something pretty nonessential to your movie or game collection, that you might throw away, then no justifiable reason to throw trash at it. Also, you pay them to make shit, they'll make more shit.

And there's still the not even supporting the developer/artist/company. Let's just say, hypothetically, the KKK went and released an awesome game that isn't racist (don't ask how) for, oh $5. Only someone who actually supports them is going to contribute money to getting a copy, because that money is probably going to go into their funds for doing bad things. Ofc, one could always just not get the game at all, but meh...

Somehow I missed a key point in one of my posts: something old that's either unavailable elsewhere, or would cost an insane amount of money to acquire.

And then there's the subjects tied into ROM-hacking, emulation, and ripping. This site is a large-scale, ever-growing copyright infringement, if you think about it.

Indie vs. Big Company. This is admittedly true, but some indie devs and artists are actually real pieces of work... I've encountered one or two. I also know of an artist who has been screwed through infringement (and it was commercial infringement, too). But this also goes to show that the protection offered by copyright even has gaps, too.

I will say this, though, the companies and artists who act like total assholes, to their customers, and anyone else, treating them all like crooks, DESERVE to actually suffer damages because of pirates and others who might infringe upon their works. I read a comment on youtube advocating the piracy of stuff from Sony as revenge for taking-down popular parodies of songs owned by them (that also served as free advertisement to the originals) left and right in the name of "copyright". I gave said comment a big fat like, and it'd get more if I were able.

You're right that already owning it shouldn't count as piracy. I have a VHS or two that's actually destroyed, now. I'm not buying a damn DVD to replace something I already owned in the first place.

"prohibitively expensive" applies to most of the big game, movie, image, or photo-making or editing applications. Adobe CC is by far the worse thing that particular company has done, $90 (or whatever it was) a month adds up pretty damn quick. It also is not much more than a rental, which is bullshit for downloaded software

And on the subject of those tools, if you're not using them to make money, why cough-over the thousands of dollars to use them? Simple, you don't.

At the end of the day, copyright laws are always inherently flawed in their designs, and any form of infringement except that which is covered under "Fair Use" is illegal according to said laws. Those who choose to comply do so for their own reasons. Those who choose to only comply partially, or not at all, also do so for their own reasons. Hence why I left this as an open discussion. I actually originally started as a full supporter of those laws, and even feared them.To some degree, I still fear them, but I barely support them, after learning the ugly truth about how these companies that claim to be stolen from deal with anyone accused of this, regardless of the amount. Also noteworthy that unless it's an indie artist or game designer that the majority of the profits go to people who had nothing to do with the actual creation of the product. Due to Easter, I must cut this reply short, and there's one more major thing I needed to discuss, but I'll do so later. In general, my reply has been hasty and sloppy because of this situation.

(03-27-2016, 01:30 PM)Kriven Wrote: TBH, I think Let's Play monetization should see a 50/50 split between the YouTuber and the developers. There's an obvious demand for that kind of video, and creating a good one can be pretty involved... So both parties should be paid their dues. Particularly when so much of a LPer's money is going to cycle right back into the industry via acquiring new content to LP.

This format has been around since at least MST3K, granted that program made use of PD material.

I think that in general there should be legitimate avenues for monetizing fanwork, whether it's fiction, art, merchandise, LPs, whatever. A portion of that money being driven back to the proper rights holders might make up for some of the dwindling profits in recent years, meanwhile it provides fans with a legitimate avenue to generate enough income that they can actually afford to purchse SMW five different ways. It creates a healthier economy in general.

(03-27-2016, 01:30 PM)Kriven Wrote: TBH, I think Let's Play monetization should see a 50/50 split between the YouTuber and the developers. There's an obvious demand for that kind of video, and creating a good one can be pretty involved... So both parties should be paid their dues. Particularly when so much of a LPer's money is going to cycle right back into the industry via acquiring new content to LP.

This format has been around since at least MST3K, granted that program made use of PD material.

I think that in general there should be legitimate avenues for monetizing fanwork, whether it's fiction, art, merchandise, LPs, whatever. A portion of that money being driven back to the proper rights holders might make up for some of the dwindling profits in recent years, meanwhile it provides fans with a legitimate avenue to generate enough income that they can actually afford to purchse SMW five different ways. It creates a healthier economy in general.

(03-27-2016, 12:05 PM)Kriven Wrote: First of all: The concept of copyright is not inherently flawed. Its intention was to protect creators so sleazy third-parties could not repackage and sell their artwork, which was a legitimate problem for authors in the 19th and mid-20th century. If content creators cannot survive, there will be less content created. The continued advancement of culture depends on the existence of copyright law.

All that said, corporations and a handful of personal estates have taken a system designed to protect individuals and bastardized it to suit themselves. This is what is broken and what needs to change.

Just as important as a copyright law is a public domain stipulation... Presently nothing can fall out of copyright in the US, which has created a large void in accessible material. It's causing creators and consumers to become blind to the history of media, due in large part by copyright holders refusing to relinquish their ownership or to reprint old material. This is why material from the 1960s onward is so prohibitively expensive. It just isn't readily available, with exceptions of course. Just look at the thousands of video games officially trapped on old hardware... it is only the efforts of pirates that keep these games publicly consumable.

Second: Development tools aren't marketed for individuals, they are marketed for development studios. "How's a guy expected to afford Adobe?" doesn't work as an argument because a guy isn't expected to afford these programs... a collective is. Particularly where game development suites are concerned.

(03-27-2016, 07:03 PM)DarkGrievous7145 Wrote:

(03-27-2016, 12:05 PM)Kriven Wrote: First of all: The concept of copyright is not inherently flawed. Its intention was to protect creators so sleazy third-parties could not repackage and sell their artwork, which was a legitimate problem for authors in the 19th and mid-20th century. If content creators cannot survive, there will be less content created. The continued advancement of culture depends on the existence of copyright law.

All that said, corporations and a handful of personal estates have taken a system designed to protect individuals and bastardized it to suit themselves. This is what is broken and what needs to change.

Just as important as a copyright law is a public domain stipulation... Presently nothing can fall out of copyright in the US, which has created a large void in accessible material. It's causing creators and consumers to become blind to the history of media, due in large part by copyright holders refusing to relinquish their ownership or to reprint old material. This is why material from the 1960s onward is so prohibitively expensive. It just isn't readily available, with exceptions of course. Just look at the thousands of video games officially trapped on old hardware... it is only the efforts of pirates that keep these games publicly consumable.

Second: Development tools aren't marketed for individuals, they are marketed for development studios. "How's a guy expected to afford Adobe?" doesn't work as an argument because a guy isn't expected to afford these programs... a collective is. Particularly where game development suites are concerned.

Yet the very law intended to protect content creation, if not patched, shall cease it.

Yeah, it needs to...but needs to and will be or two entirely different things.

Exactly. This needs to stop.
There are many games tied-down to just about everything. And it is sad a majority of them will be destroyed, and forgotten forever. And it's not necessarily just older hardware or software. I would expect even the "newer" stuff to one day cease to exist if someone doesn't archive it. But it's only the pirates that will do this.

(03-27-2016, 07:06 PM)Kriven Wrote: "Needs to Will Different Things"

Uh, kay? Isn't the point of this conversation to identify the things that are wrong with the system? How does saying "Yeah, but the fatcats will never do it" move things forward?