Masami Kuramoto wrote:
The fact that I have no way of knowing is precisely the reason why I won't get involved. As Daniel pointed out, the IP owner may simply not care. It's none of my business to figure this out.
If you don't want to get involved, that's fine. That's entirely up to you.
What I took issue with was not your level of involvement, but your suggestion that if the author of the work elects not to put the work in SL, then anyone and everyone else should automatically be free to do so. That's just all kinds of wrong.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
I am familiar with that aspect of copyright, and it is one that I find highly unethical. I agree that the IP owner deserves to be compensated, but I reject the abuse of copyright as a censorship tool or as a means to control popular culture.
Again, you appear to be operating from a standpoint of entitlement, as if you feel you somehow deserve to have someone else's work, whether they want you to have it or not. And once again, I'll point out that that attitude is absolutely disgusting. Have you no respect at all for anyone's wishes but your own?
I can't believe you had the gall to use the word "ethical" to defend your standpoint. I'm not sure whether that's just laughable or if it's terribly sad. Either way, where's your sense of ethics when it comes to the rights of creators?
The fact that you think it's about censorship is so bass-ackwards, it's ridiculous. It's not about controlling the masses, or some shadowy effort to shape pop culture from behind the scenes. It's simply about the fundamental right of each and every person in this life to be charge of his or her own destiny. For creators, that absolutely means the right to determine whether, where, how, and by whom, their works get copied. The fact that you're apparently not willing or able to see that is pretty awful.
In any case, if disagree with a law, any law, then the right thing to do is to petition your congressman, and try to get it changed. If that's not enough, then you always have the option to run for Congress yourself, and should you get elected, you can then draft any bill you want, and do your damnedest to get it signed into law. What you don't do is break the law, just because you don't think it suits you. You abide by the law, even if you disagree with it, until such time as you can succeed in implementing its change. That's what it means to livie in a civilized society.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
If you look around in SL, what do you see?
Quite obviously, the very subject we're discussing is what to do when "what you see", as you put it, is a stolen item that shouldn't be here to be seen in the first place. You sound like you're trying to say the mere fact that thieves have already committed theft is somehow in itself a justification for theft. That kid of circular logic is so childish, so self-serving, so pathetic.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
You see a virtual replication of the real world, with some modifications.
Look, if you REALLY want to play the "replicate the real world" game, then let's play it, all the way. The real world has laws by which we all have to abide. Those same laws are just as applicable in SL. That includes intellectual property laws. With that in mind, let's take a look at each of your examples, and talk about how they work, under the law.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
You see houses, furniture and clothes copied from the real world.
First of all, things like houses, furniture, and clothes are not copyrightable, so that's entirely a non-issue. Those are utilitarian items, not artworks, under the law. This is why knock-off clothing, and knock-off furniture exists in the real world. Anyone can copy the design of a dress or a chair, or what have you, and there's no problem.
If a copyrighted work, or a trademark, happens to be embedded into a utilitarian item, then any copies of the item must be exclusive of the artwork. For example, if T-shirt has a picture printed on it, you can copy the shirt itself all you like, but you cannot include the picture.
Second, it's crucially important to realize there is a distinct difference between a real item, and a piece of artwork depicting an item. Everything in SL is artwork. Thus, copyright law applies to all of it.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
a virtual environment inspired by Neal Stephenson
There's a world of difference between "inspired by" and "copy of", in this context. Just because Neal Stephenson wrote a book about virtual worlds before virtual worlds really existed, doesn't mean in any way that virtual worlds are somehow copies of his work. The very notion is so silly, the English language lacks the words to describe the magnitude.
If someone were to create Snow Crash Land, or something, and include characters, settings, story lines, etc., from the book, that would of course be a problem (unless Neal says it's not). But that's not what SL is, obviously. No one in their right mind could ever argue that SL is a copy of Stephenson's work, even if its creators did find some inspiration there.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
with vampires inspired by Ann Rice
Anne Rice does not own vampires as a genre. She did not invent them. No one person did. They've 'existed' for thousands and thousands of years, and are at least as old as written story telling itself, probably much older. It happens that Rice's particular stories and characters have done much to help shape the modern state of the genre, but that has nothing to do with anything in this context.
Once again, there's a tremendous difference between "inspired by" and "copy of". If I make a vampire character with long hair, and a French sounding name, that doesn't necessarily mean I copied Anne Rice's work in any way.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
Goreans inspired by John Norman
For the thrd time now, "inspired by" and "copy of" are not the same thing. If someone happens to enjoy that particular role playing fantasy, or even adopts the Gorean lifestyle full time, that doesn't mean they've copied anything from Norman's work. You can't copyright a lifestyle, or even an artistic style, only the actual works themselves.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
cyberpunk inspired by Ridley Scott, William Gibson or Masamune Shiro,
And for the fourth time, "inspired by", "copy of", one of these thigns is not like the other.
I've done plenty of Blade Runner-esque works in my time. None have been copies of anyone else's work. Just because something looks like it plausibly could exist within the same universe as something else doesn't mean one is a copy of the other. Again, no one owns style.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
science fiction inspired by Gene Roddenberry or George Lucas.
Since you mentioned Roddenberry, let's talk Star Trek for a moment. It's hardly any secret that I've done tons of Star Trek work in SL (and elsewhere), both in official and unofficial capacities. The official stuff isn't really relevant in this context, since of course I had express permission for that, by the very nature of having been hired to do it. As for the unofficial stuff, the Star Trek franchise is incredibly supportive of fan art. With very few exceptions, they really don't care what you do, as long as you make it clear that your work is a fan production, and not try to pass it off as official. (A lot of franchises could learn a thing or two from this policy.)
LucasArts has a somewhat similar take on fan productions, but they tend to be a bit unpredictable on what they decide to lay the smack down upon. They'll do goofy things like sue a laser pointer company for making a device that almost kind of sort of maybe looks like a lightsaber, at the same time as they'll allow all manner of fan films, books, paintings, etc. to be produced. There doesn't seem to be any particular rhyme or reason to what they will and won't allow. But that's their prerogative. They can manage their IP any way they want.
Because of this uncertainty, I tend to steer clear of making Star Wars content. I've made plenty of stuff that looks like it could belong in the Star Wars universe. I've designed and created entire builds that look they could have been levels in a Jedi Knight game. But they weren't. They were wholly original works. As I've said a few times now, simply adopting a style is not the same thing as copying a work. "Inspired by" and "copy of" are not the same thing.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
And of course you see live events where musicians perform someone else's works.
Any musician who wants to publicly perform someone else's songs should first obtain license to do so. It's pretty easy and painless process to do that.
On a side note, there is currently an effort in Washington to criminalize unauthorized digital performances. Hopefully the proposed ideas won't become law. They're seriously overboard.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
All these things exist on the grid without proper licensing.
Again, you seem to be implying the mere fact thieves have already thieved is somehow a justification for theft. That's beyond silly.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
How many of them have you reported?
As I already said, whenever I encounter what looks to be an unauthorized copy of something, I take a minute to inform the rightful owner, as best I can. Usually that just means firing off a quick E-mail to the contact address on the owner's website. The owner can then choose to deal with it, or not deal with it, however they see fit. My civic duty is done.
As for the answer to your question as worded, how many of the things you specifically mentioned have I so reported, the answer would be very few. Most of what you listed were general stylistic choices, not copies of anything, and you can't copyright a style. As I've said at least half a dozen times, "inspired by" does not necessarily mean "copy of". It quite obviously would be pointless to report something that isn't a copy.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
I don't want to live in a world where all culture is locked in and indefinitely controlled by corporations.
Neither would I. Neither would anyone. But that's not at all what we're talking about. The right of a creator to determine whether, how, where, and by whom, his or her works are copied does not constitute the locking of culture. If anything, it's exactly the opposite. These protections encourage creators to create.
As for the subject of corporations themselves, you seem to be implying that anything with that label must automatically be bad. If that's indeed your stance, then I have to tell you it's a really childish outlook. If I elect to incorporate my business tomorrow, it doesn't mean I'm no longer the same person I was yesterday. It just means I do my taxes a little differently than I otherwise would, and I have certain liability protections that I otherwise would not.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
Those laws are not democratic,
Of course they are democratic. First of all, they were written by elected officials. If you want them changed, you have the option to organize a campaign to see it done, just like every other citizen. That's what living in a democracy means.
Second, and more importantly, democracy exists to safeguard the rights of every individual. Some people, possibly yourself included, seem to think democracy is synonymous with mob rule, believing that whatever the majority of the public wants is what should happen, no matter whether it tramples on individual rights or not. That outlook is entirely off the mark, and it's very, very dangerous. It's the kind of thinking that spawns witch hunts, inquisitions, lynchings, even holocausts. It's the most undemocratic mentality there is.
Because I live in a democracy, I know that the rule of law is here to safeguard my rights. The law doesn't give me my rights; I already have them, simply because I'm a human being. The law serves to stop others from trying to take my rights away.
Property owners in a democracy have the right to maintain control of their own property. This includes intellectual property, as well as physical property. My right to not have people copy my works is no different from my right to not have people trespassing on my land, or joyriding in my car, or looting my bank account, or what have you. It's all the same thing. What I own is what own, and no one has the right to take it without my permission.
The public doesn't have any right to take anything of mine, no matter how many of them might want it. If I choose to distribute my stuff to the public, or just to some of the pubic, or not to anyone at all, that's my decision. The law exists to protect that decision.
Of course, that's occasionally going to mean that something I might want, but which belongs to someone else, isn't going to become mine. Disappointing as that may be sometimes, it's perfectly OK. No matter how badly I might want a particular thing, having it is nowhere near as important as ensuring that the stuff that's already mine can't just be taken by someone else without my say so.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
I'm not going to become instrumental in their enforcement by joining some kind of neighborhood watch
No one said you have to. The topic here is what can be done by those who ARE interested in that kind of participation. If you're not, that's up to you. I just think we'd all appreciate it if you wouldn't try to promote the idea that people should just be able to take other people's property, without permission. That's not only a bit off topic, it's just plain wrong.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
The public is entitled to have the works anyway, because all works enter the public domain at some point.
Look, if you want to take my stuff 70 years after I die, have at it. In the here and now, you're not entitled to anything that doesn't belong to you.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
What copyright adds to the mix is the IP owner's entitlement to attribution and compensation for a limited period of time. That's not frightening; it's the original deal as written down in the U.S. constitution.
The limited period of time, under present law, is the author's lifetime plus 70 years. So, kindly wait that long before you start ripping models and putting them in SL. and there will be no problem. Taking stuff that belong to someone else NOW is a huge problem, and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for arguing that it's in any way OK to do.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
The whole idea was to encourage authors to release their works instead of locking them away.
No, the idea was to see to it that if an author does choose to release a work, he or she can expect not to have it taken without his or her permission. If an author chooses not to release something, that's his or her prerogative.
Either way, nobody gets to just take without permission.
Masami Kuramoto wrote:
Why else would the public grant such a right in the first place?
The public doesn't grant rights. Human beings are born with them. Our nation was founded on this principle, above all others. (Albeit, by highly hypocritical slave owners, but the imperfections of the messengers don't diminish the validity of the message.) As I said above, our laws exist to safeguard the rights that we already have.
"It's a big universe. Everything happens somewhere."
- The Doctor
