The EU petition for Stop Killing Games is now open!

[Plains-Cow]

i mean, no? the first part is somewhat correct, the second isn't.

i wish you were less combative than this. my guess is i'm on your side more than you think.

Not being combative. That's really how I see this. How does "violating" copyright not land someone in jail or cost them a fortune in penalties without them cowtowing to the corp that owns it?

 

[Angst]

Not being combative. That's really how I see this. How does "violating" copyright not land someone in jail or cost them a fortune in penalties without them cowtowing to the corp that owns it?

first off, i'm writing this in a hurry so some may be unclear, but i'll try to reoutline my position.

i'm talking about copyright in the abstract. it's not that punishment never existed for violating it, punishment is part of breaking the law. but your take on what copyright entails is a very modern form of it. the idea of it has substantially changed, as has its scope and entrenchment in legal systems.

to put it bluntly, it used to be an investment guarantee (ie a reward for making something); now it's a system of control. the two are different.

we know from history what the trade of ideas was like before the invention of copyright as an institution. you don't like corps? well, enjoy that if you want to be a blacksmith and you want to partake in this specific smithing technique that only one business has known for 500 years, tough luck, you're gonna join that and you're gonna do what they say. nevermind the repercussions you'll face if you leak trade secrets. and if you write a book and a bigger name just writes their name on it? tough luck.

the idea that copyright introduced suppression or kowtowing to corporations/institutions/the government is just not true. the society we live in today is fundamentally different than what we can fathom things were like; today, ideas aren't really to be safekept. like, to cut it up sharply as to a grand history switch between the two; previously you were allowed to do anything, but you could never learn how to. today, you can learn how to, but you're not allowed to do it.

we were not in a free innovative free talkin' free sharin' society before copyright. and institutions were not weaker because it wasn't implemented. both were trash. you were not allowed learning unless you submitted to some guild that knew how to do metal in a good way for 500 years and wouldn't share it with anyone. overstating for the point, of course, but abandoning copyright is not the path to freedom. like, at all.

so it sucked then, it sucks now. the thing is, you're not against copyright. you're against capitalism. (and i get that.) and destroying the former doesn't destroy the latter. within a capitalist system, i don't know a system besides copyright that provides some basic guarantee for innovation and free exchange of ideas. because people are possessive and have loss aversion.

that said, and this is for your consideration here: i don't actually support copyright in its current form. it has been thoroughly warped in particular by the cultural industry, and the whole public idea of what copyright is (ie just something toxic and ass) is completely correct. it's just completely detached from the purpose of copyright historically. we have in it seen the tendency as is with all capital; that it centralizes power driven by, well, capital, and kind of nexus'es it up and pushes legislation to go completely contrary to its actual purpose. the story of copyright getting truly toxic aligns timelinewise with cartelization and monopolization. the idea for copyright is to give people a short window to use it, not sit on their ass on intellectual property for a century. then we revolve back into the old guilds somehow, except everyone now can see the things they're not allowed to use.

now, break capitalism? then sure, get rid of copyright. it's literally only necessary within a system of capitalist competition. (non-massive) artists don't usually care about copyright per se, they just want their copyrights so they can eat.

 

[Ordnael]

Not only all of what @Angst is saying but also copyright is getting, not only way out of hand, but also stupider...follow me on this. Nintendo, thread related, just filled a patent for summoning creatures

Nintendo and The Pokemon Company pick up patent on summoning a character and letting it fight another

Nintendo and Pokemon patent for summoning a character and letting it fight another could impact Palworld and other games.

nintendoeverything.com

This is bonkers

 

[Angst]

and that's the kind of toxic crap we're indeed seeing with the entrenchment of the overlap between legislative power over intellectual property and capital interests being powerful.

summoning a character to fight another is incredibly broad and much older than pokemon. i don't see how this is legally defensible if challenged in court (although within japan itself, copyright is even more toxic, so may have some pull there). i hope not, at least.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

Not only all of what @Angst is saying but also copyright is getting, not only way out of hand, but also stupider...follow me on this. Nintendo, thread related, just filled a patent for summoning creatures

Nintendo and The Pokemon Company pick up patent on summoning a character and letting it fight another

Nintendo and Pokemon patent for summoning a character and letting it fight another could impact Palworld and other games.

nintendoeverything.com

This is bonkers

Here's someone studying Canadian patent law on this US patent for a Japanese company:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nintendo/comments/1ni7q3s/dispelling_some_common_misconceptions_about

The tl;dr is that the scope of the patent is narrow, people are blowing it out of proportion, but it still is scummy.