Copyright

Kamizu wrote: I am not a lawyer, but I am an artist, a Jedi, and consider myself a compassionate human being.

As an artist, I poor my being into everything I create. Or it's not worth making. Everything from the chainmaile jewelry and bags, to the embroidered fabric bags, to the tooled leather armor bracers, bracelets, and wallets, to the clothing, the songs I sing, to my drawings and painted art, to the miniatures I enjoy painting, to the stories I write, to the wood crafts I do (such as the TotJO donations). These are the manifestations of who I am, not as a human, but tangible representations of me as a spirit.

Aside from that, there is SO MUCH time involved in making anything artistic. Time and energy spent learning, practicing, and then time and energy spent making. Much less the materials and everything else needed to fuel it.

I agree with you. But rules and laws follow society. Not necessarily what is good or right. Case in point, how long it took to get minority equality (isn't this STILL going on?), women's voting rights, gay marriage, etc. It has to swing in the direction of public opinion and if not then, has to be found unconstitutional. There isn't a law guaranteeing profit for your work in the constitution. As an artist, I create because I don't have a choice. It is for MY enjoyment and mine alone. If other find it interesting enough to compensate me for it or to share it with others, then I will smile and accept their generosity. But I am by no means entitled to payment for my output. Especially with something as subjective as art. I'm currently recording an album. I've already spent over $50,000 on a music education and I'm only halfway through it. I did it because thats the education I wanted. It was worth my time and money to get better at it, and to know more about it. Art should be its own reward. This commercial entitlement and intellectual property stuff didn't even really exist in its current form until the Disney corporation corrupted the laws that were already in place. The posthumous stuff wasn't even there till Disney died. If we continue to strengthen these laws, we give more power to horrible corporate entities like Monsanto who want to own the intellectual property of plant genomes just because they were first to map them. This is a double edged sword as with most laws. Do we hamper our freedom for security, or be bold and allow each other more freedom?

Out of respect for the original photographer of the image I had been using (the pen) I've changed my avatar to one of my own creation. It was just the right thing to do.

If you look at our doctrine, how you believe we should treat each other and forget for a moment what the 'rights' are, is what 'you' are doing in keeping with how you believe a Jedi should act?
I'm suggesting some self reflection, aside from any strongly held opinions that are being posted.

I believe that I am, in that I'm keeping my mind open to new ideas, not trying to force everyone into the same set of morals as mine, not being captive to fearfulness, and looking for anew way of dealing with it where everyone is happy.

6h057 wrote: That's specifically why I mentioned streaming and freemium. Video games have no other function than to be consumed, unless corporations wanting advertising in the captive market of players did paid ads in the games, just like they do in the movies. Commercial use. Games only means of commercial viability are to be played. Whereas Music and images have other commercial outlets than the consumer. IE commercials, licenses for movies or books, etc. they are both used to help sell products because they help to market to specific cultural groups. Games aren't used to sell products as a marketing tool. I honestly, as a musician, only see recorded music as a marketing tool. The live production is where the real money is. And to a lesser degree, licensing to film, TV and ads. 99% of people with a record deal never make a dime off of their recorded music, the labels make a killing though.

The bolded statements are 100% incorrect. Games are an art form, like any other, and their purpose is the same as that of other forms of art.

Firstly, streaming is only allowed if the content owners of the game say it's allowed. You don't own any video game you buy; if it has a ToS, then you've just effectively leased it. Your "end-user" rights are literally only to play the game in the fashion that the copyright holders intend for you to play it, as evidenced by the ToS. At any point in time, the rightsholders can deny you the legal ability to stream that game. If you continue, they have the right to pursue legal action to enforce their copyright. Why do you think Nintendo LPs weren't available on YouTube until they hammered out a legal agreement?

This also occurs in tabletop gaming--when 4e D&D came out, the license changed, and they started shutting down fansites with character sheets for the new edition because 4e wasn't released under the original OGL.

Secondly, streaming introduces other copyright-related problems. In some cases, video games have soundtracks or individual songs that are licensed for home play, but not for exhibition. In those cases, you are legally obligated (if streaming) to skip, cut out, mute, or edit out the song in question from your gameplay. If you do not, you have breached your user agreement for the game itself and infringed on the copyright of whoever owns the song.

This is also why sites like Twitch mute stream highlights and playbacks that have a non-game soundtrack in them. If you're listening to the radio or an mp3 player or Pandora, Twitch isn't authorized (or required) to find the usage rights for any of those songs. Instead, it's much more sensible (legally) for them to simply mute playbacks of your stream if it contains copyrighted music that is not found in the game you're streaming. (On a related note, acapella recordings of covers of songs are illegal unless you have the rights to do so, and the only reason people get by with it on YouTube is because YouTube has reached agreements with certain rights-management companies to assuage the burden of the problem.)

Games also do sell lots of product. If you don't believe games are a marketing device unto themselves, then you haven't seen series-based hype, don't understand the nature of cliffhangers, or have never played a GTA game with product placement (express or implied.)

It literally doesn't matter what your interpretation of the laws, or the "shifting paradigm", or of "fair use" are unless you have a law degree. Because copyright is a law.

If you don't like that law, then I suggest that you begin "copylefting", using CreativeCommons licensing, GPL, OGL, MIT, or any number of the very-applicable alternate rights protections schemes in use on the Internet today for your own artwork, each of which is actually able to do what it does because of copyright law. Or, find out which legislators are responsible for that kind of legal change, and write to them.

Do not protest copyright law, however, by breaking it. That helps no one, hurts artists, and could cost you a day in court.

6h057 wrote:

Kamizu wrote: I am not a lawyer, but I am an artist, a Jedi, and consider myself a compassionate human being.

As an artist, I poor my being into everything I create. Or it's not worth making. Everything from the chainmaile jewelry and bags, to the embroidered fabric bags, to the tooled leather armor bracers, bracelets, and wallets, to the clothing, the songs I sing, to my drawings and painted art, to the miniatures I enjoy painting, to the stories I write, to the wood crafts I do (such as the TotJO donations). These are the manifestations of who I am, not as a human, but tangible representations of me as a spirit.

Aside from that, there is SO MUCH time involved in making anything artistic. Time and energy spent learning, practicing, and then time and energy spent making. Much less the materials and everything else needed to fuel it.

I agree with you. But rules and laws follow society. Not necessarily what is good or right. Case in point, how long it took to get minority equality (isn't this STILL going on?), women's voting rights, gay marriage, etc. It has to swing in the direction of public opinion and if not then, has to be found unconstitutional. There isn't a law guaranteeing profit for your work in the constitution. As an artist, I create because I don't have a choice. It is for MY enjoyment and mine alone. If other find it interesting enough to compensate me for it or to share it with others, then I will smile and accept their generosity. But I am by no means entitled to payment for my output. Especially with something as subjective as art. I'm currently recording an album. I've already spent over $50,000 on a music education and I'm only halfway through it. I did it because thats the education I wanted. It was worth my time and money to get better at it, and to know more about it. Art should be its own reward. This commercial entitlement and intellectual property stuff didn't even really exist in its current form until the Disney corporation corrupted the laws that were already in place. The posthumous stuff wasn't even there till Disney died. If we continue to strengthen these laws, we give more power to horrible corporate entities like Monsanto who want to own the intellectual property of plant genomes just because they were first to map them. This is a double edged sword as with most laws. Do we hamper our freedom for security, or be bold and allow each other more freedom?

As with anything, art's value is based off of both the value in the eyes of the buyer and the cost of materials/support (which sometimes materials are the only thing art is valued at). It is a product. There are some things I make for free and have no problem sharing or they being used for only the price of credit. Other times I will make things for simply material costs (sometimes not even that if I have the materials already on-hand and with no plans for them). If there is no material cost, there is no price. This I'll do for close friends and only when I have the time. Other times for friends, I will charge a minimum price for materials and time. Other times I produce items that are intended for sale. I include the price of my time in those. When I made the TotJO plaques I did it because I was inspired to, had a NEED to, and wanted them to go to a good cause. Other art I make for me. I would not share them as I would not share my being.

I create not because I want to, but because I HAVE to. I am most alive when I am creating. I rarely stop, and when I do, I am a rather dull imitation of myself. I love people who love these things with me. That's why I tend to make things for my close friends at-cost and my friends at a discount. Because I know they'll cherish it. That's why I share my art work and my stories. That's why, after over two years of work, and probably another two years to come, I plan on officially writing up and releasing my Pathfinder Campaign free to that community. But I still deserve the credit. That is still a good chunk of me wandering around out there.

---

As far as morals and Jedi go, here's what I'm looking at in the Doctrine
From The 16 Teachings

9. Jedi have integrity. We are authentic to what we believe and are open, honest and true to our purpose and our minds. We remove all masks to reveal ourselves as courageous and noble of heart. We do not hide from fear of damage to our image because we know that our image cannot be blemished from the words and actions of others.

12. Jedi believe that love and compassion are central to their lives. We must love and care for each other as we must love and care for ourselves; by doing this we envelop all life in the positivity of our actions and thoughts. We are providers and beacons of hope.

16. Jedi make a commitment to their cause and to humanity. Our ideals, philosophies, and practices define the belief of Jediism and we take action on this path for self-improvement and to help others. We are both the witnesses and protectors of the Jedi way by the practice of our convictions

A. Laws are absolutely interpretable. That's what courts do. The judicial branch is defined as such. I have a minor in music business. Entertainment law was a large part of those studies. So I actually do have a grasp of the subject matter, including copyright law.

2. The doctrine also leaves much to interpretation as do most religious documents. It has more to do with your character than it does with following it to the letter. Where in any of my posts have I not been an advocate of positivity and hope? Compassion is an open ended statement. Am I acting out of compassion by helping assisting others in maintaining their attachment to something material or am I showing compassion by encouraging them to adapt and showing them hope that there might be another way that isn't accounted for?

6h057 wrote: 2. The doctrine also leaves much to interpretation as do most religious documents. It has more to do with your character than it does with following it to the letter. Where in any of my posts have I not been an advocate of positivity and hope? Compassion is an open ended statement. Am I acting out of compassion by helping assisting others in maintaining their attachment to something material or am I showing compassion by encouraging them to adapt and showing them hope that there might be another way that isn't accounted for?

I should have made it clearer... I wasn't asking for anyone to post an answer to my question. It was meant as a self reflection on whether each person in this thread believes they are following what they believe a Jedi to be with regards to using copyrighted (or otherwise) artwork.

I took it that way. I merely wanted to openly respond.

I also want to state clearly, that I am not advocating piracy for the sake of piracy. While I agree that one should always do their best to obey the law. Sometimes (not necessarily in this case) the law is wrong. IE refusal of gay marriage. A denial of equal rights is absolutely unconscionable. People are getting around copyright law every day. However, I see what we have in place as a gray area. It affords creators the ability to exploit their works for profit in our society. Most of the creators are under the employ of larger entities that will claim ownership of said works based on contracts signed by those employees. Whether that content was created for the express purpose of their work with that company or not. In other words. To work for the people with the deep pockets to get your ideas out there, you as the creator forfeit you intellectual property rights. Apple does this, Google does this, all software companies have this clause in employment contracts. To protect the code they already have. But it also gives them rights to any code you write while in their employ. This is copyright law in action. It's broken. Corporations broke the system, then the internet broke the system even more. The laws are obsolete at this point. Adding anything new is just a patch fix. Part of the problem is 'corporate personage'. This part of the law is wrong. It's how companies buy elections. Proof that law does not define right and wrong. Just the system within which things function.

6h057 wrote: A. Laws are absolutely interpretable. That's what courts do. The judicial branch is defined as such. I have a minor in music business. Entertainment law was a large part of those studies. So I actually do have a grasp of the subject matter, including copyright law.

Law is interpreted by the judicial branch of the government in the United States. If you are not a member of that governmental branch on some level, you are not qualified to interpret said laws.