amok: but is it not an aim to create laws that are as less open to abuse as possible? is this not to shrugging off responsibility pushing the blame on someone else?

Crosmando: Why would "I" (speaking hypothetically) or any author have to make this choice. What if an author wrote a book, one book, and he thought that was it, it was complete, even perfect, and nothing needed to be added, no prequel or sequel or nothing.

If he wanted that work to "rest in piece" as it were, to be left alone and to stand on it's own, without being violated or having any derived works, I think he has that right.

And I think no one has any right to say that person doesn't have a right to sit on their IP until they die and then hand it on to their children, or put it into an estate like Tolkien.

Strijkbout: Like I said earlier there is always room for improvement but saying to drop it altogether with disrespect to someone elses property is going a bit to far as far as I'm concerned.
And we are talking about things like games, music, films and art here which are luxeries in my eyes, it is not like we are talking about a disfunctnional healthcare system.

Fenixp: The current state of copyright laws is far more akin to the wild west than their complete absence.

First of all, courts work via precedents, even when it comes to the copyright laws. The crap with copyrighting words we see around us oh so often? That's the result of the 'strong' securing their grounds for the future, while the 'weaker' can't really do a damn thing about that without wasting a lot of their precious time and money in court. Now I'm not blaming the 'strong' for doing so - they have to. Because of copyright laws.

Secondly, when a powerful company's rights are infringed, it's very easy for it to defend - they have their own departments of lawyers, working at this kind of stuff non-stop. And then there are the small ones, individual creators, who - as awalterj pointed out already - can, at best, write a polite ceise and desist order and hope for the best. Sure, they could take their case to the court, however that's very time-consuming - and a creative person can't afford to lose that time, nor to lose the money they would if they'd happen to lose.

Thirdly, your own example of 'signing bad deals and agreements' - that's exactly the kind of stuff copyright laws should protect you against, not support it in abundance! How this works most of the time is that, when you're no longer profitable enough, a big house approaches you, basically saying "Look, you give us all your past IPs and we employ you, saving your from losing your jobs". There are very few genuinely successful small companies which would give up their freedom - and what I have just described is blackmail, plain and simple. Of course you'll sign that bad deal, at the end of the day, food on the plate is more important than what you have created.

That's wild west. There's very minimal protection for the little guy, and when a law is so open to abuse as you yourself admit, there's something very wrong with it.

When a law more commonly achieves the precise opposite of what it's supposed to represent, it's just no a very good law to begin with. Of course, there's a good chance these laws are not at all written to protect the little guy, and are open to abuse on purpose - but that's another discussion entirely

Crosmando: Yes, people can have different views on different issues.

Crosmando: You can do nothing but pathetically nitpick old posts I have made, it is the extent of your ability to argue. You cannot defend shit like 20-year Public Domain so you bring up things I said in a completely different thread, months ago, about a completely different topic. You are admitting you have lost and have no argument every second you continue to use those old comments of mine on DRM as some kind of tool to say "You aren't allowed to have those opinions on Public Domain, because for some vague reasons which make little sense I think they contradict with the way you argued against DRM". Yeah.... You are so full of shit.

Strijkbout: Like I said there is room for improvement but in your example it seems more like lawyers and judges who should have chosen a different profession.

Strijkbout: And we are talking about things like games, music, films and art here which are luxeries in my eyes, it is not like we are talking about a disfunctnional healthcare system.

Crosmando: Your logic is completely, ridiculously stupid, you're now making the false equivocation between crackers and would-be plagiarists.

Crosmando: How does that have anything to do intellectual works being forcibly released (against any desires of it's authors/original owners) into the public domain, and then the public being free to do whatever they like with those works, even making a sequel without the approval, authorizations or involvement of the original work's authors.

Crosmando: A hacked, modded or cracked video game is not an official or canon video game, hackers or crackers cannot sell a video game they cracked in an official sense. If a work goes public domain, then people CAN make sequels or derived works that are %100 official and canon, because the work is PD.

You obviously cannot understand the different between official and unofficial, it's like I'm actually talking to a monkey.

Crosmando: Yes, people can have different views on different issues. You can do nothing but pathetically nitpick old posts I have made, it is the extent of your ability to argue. You cannot defend shit like 20-year Public Domain so you bring up things I said in a completely different thread, months ago, about a completely different topic. You are admitting you have lost and have no argument every second you continue to use those old comments of mine on DRM as some kind of tool to say "You aren't allowed to have those opinions on Public Domain, because for some vague reasons which make little sense I think they contradict with the way you argued against DRM". Yeah.... You are so full of shit.

Crosmando: I doubt that you are capable of breathing and standing upright at the same time.

Crosmando: EDIT: Either way I'm sick of this discussion...

Crosmando: DRM and intellectual property have little to nothing to do with each other in this context. I don't like having DRM on games I buy, it's a personal preference, and I'm willing to pirate a game than buy one with DRM. This doesn't mean I don't respect intellectual property.

Firstly, explain to me how piracy is a violation of intellectual property, because I don't think it is. No one is harmed, nothing is taken (stolen) as digital goods are not scarce, so what exactly about the IP has been violated?

I think a real violation of IP would be if someone took your characters and story and use them exactly in a game or something they created. But piracy is harmless.

EDIT: Either way I'm sick of this discussion...

jamotide: (all big governments blahh) was.

Crosmando: DRM and intellectual property have little to nothing to do with each other in this context. I don't like having DRM on games I buy, it's a personal preference, and I'm willing to pirate a game than buy one with DRM. This doesn't mean I don't respect intellectual property.

Firstly, explain to me how piracy is a violation of intellectual property, because I don't think it is. No one is harmed, nothing is taken (stolen) as digital goods are not scarce, so what exactly about the IP has been violated?

I think a real violation of IP would be if someone took your characters and story and use them exactly in a game or something they created. But piracy is harmless.

Crosmando: There's nothing wrong with that point. You're an irrelevant individual with an irrelevant opinion on an equally irrelevant public board. World governments understand this issue, the vast interests and issues involved, far more than someone like you ever would. Your view carries no weight, and I am giving it what it deserves.

Crosmando: But you continue to use them, further making your points irrelevant.

Crosmando: You obviously cannot discuss an issue without reverted to digging up old posts and posing them out-of-context. I'm not going to humor someone who cannot properly discuss something and instead of intentionally deceptive and brings up old forum posts as a personal attack.

Crosmando: As I said above.

Crosmando: That's it? Because I said I refused to pay money for products with DRM on it, that somehow negates that the ownership of intellectual property belongs to those who paid for it's creation? A single copy of a product is not it's entire intellectual property, I purchase Baldur's Gate on GOG, I do not now own Baldur's Gate IP - I just own one copy for personal use.

Crosmando: Again your comparison has no merit. And you continue to base your "argument" on nothing but digging up old out of context and unrelated quotes. Pathetic.

Crosmando: And....It's not just *my* opinion on PD, it's like the opinion of every government on the face of the planet. I'm just pointing out, that your opinion is irrelevant, and holds no weight anywhere. Just saying.