I don’t know how we’re going to be able to change this. I’ve voted for parties that are the most outspoken on this issue all my life. But somehow this never makes it into any actual policy.
I’ve even on multiple occasions called my representatives as parts of grass roots lobbies against new trade agreements or laws that would set us back even further. But even when such grass roots campaigns were successful, the same proposal would just return at most a few years later and the grass roots oppositions would get tired of trying to stop them.
What else can we do?
Unironically, learn about the theory of politics and organize with others. The current political system will always act in the interest of business, it's basically an evolutionary system.
There is never going to be a financial insensitive to change how copyright law works because it makes companies a lot of money, and if one representative attempts to change the law, these companies can use that wealth to sponsor a challenger to that individual (most likely in the primaries for their next race).
It's dangerous to actively put any policy in place which goes against the interest of industry. But it isn't impossible, remember the government broke up Standard Oil, ultimately they do have the power to change laws if the political will is there.
I can't confidently say that you're wrong and that such change is impossible (I honestly don't know and have made the choice to be optimistic), but I think it's fair to say that our political system and the environment it operates in has changed dramatically since 1911. Many of the changes we've seen since then were orchestrated by industry with the specific goal of limiting the possibility or effectiveness of the government interfering in their activities. The brake up of Standard Oil, or even Ma Bell, may not be a very good indicator of what is possible today.
Basically nothing. We are living in a simulation of "rule of the people". But the system is built so that basically nothing changes for those with actual power.
Call my a disillusioned cynic but I believe democracy is the theatrical play that is being performed to make us believe we have some bit of influence.
> But even when such grass roots campaigns were successful, the same proposal would just return at most a few years later and the grass roots oppositions would get tired of trying to stop them.
If such things succeed they are an anomaly and the system over time evolves to find ways to ensure this firm of influence from the popolus will cease to exist. The current iteration you describe is crude but effective.
My idealistic heart would love for a way out that actually had a chance of success, but I just can't see it.
As for crowdfunding, the wealth distribution is such that even if the bottom 50 percent of the population in the US all united, they could be outspend by the top one percent 16 times overs. On a global scale it is even worse.
That seems like an odd argument to be making in a discussion about a cool project someone made despite it infringing copyright. Maybe copyright laws don't put people off in the way that you're claiming they do.
Or maybe there would be many more of such projects if people weren't put off from starting them in the first place by copyright laws.
Maybe, but based on the evidence we have that's just speculation. Perhaps copyright and fear of litigation isn't a common reason why people don't make things. As we see from the link this thread is about, people do make things using other people's IP.
Maybe copyright laws push people who are concerned about being sued to make original works instead of making nothing as you're asserting. That would actually be very a positive outcome, and arguably a great reason to keep copyrights. After all, there's nothing stopping people making things. The only thing they're prevented from doing is using someone else's IP.
I suspect that many of the people who are creating things which violate copyright law are simply unaware that what they are doing is against the law (they feel that they have rights which they actually don't) or they misunderstand the law (See: "No Copyright Intended" descriptions on youtube videos).
Some certainly also think that enforcement is lax enough that they won't be caught, or at least not before others have mirrored the content, or that they won't face meaningful consequences when they are caught, but I think we absolutely cannot say that the existence of copyright violations proves that the laws aren't hurting us by preventing popular original works from being made.
> The only thing they're prevented from doing is using someone else's IP.
Consider what happened with blurred lines (see https://mcpherson-llp.com/articles/crushing-creativity-the-b...) We know copyright law hurts people that aren't using anyone else's IP.
This guy has a lot to say on the problems with the idea that using other people's IP is a bad thing in the first place:
https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_laws_that_choke_cr...
See the "Copyright & distribution:" section from https://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html for an example from an artist who almost wasn't able to make their work at all because of the problems. It was only extraordinary sacrifice that allowed that artist to bring her creative (and I think highly entertaining) work into the world, and that creator is convinced that a bar set that high leaves a lot of artists unable to clear the hurdle.
I agree that Nintendo deserves criticism for their aggressive enforcement of the law, but the real problem is the law that allows for it. I agree Nintendo's actions probably hurt them more than helps them, but clearly they feel otherwise. Fix the laws and it fixes the problem at its source.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.SoftwareNo...
This makes no sense. The law has nothing to say about anything until whatever it is has already gotten into court.
That implies that the law doesn't make it prohibitively difficult or expensive for someone to go to court and effectively defend their actions against a company with trillions of dollars in assets.
We know for example that the law makes it possible for a very wealthy party to drag out or complicate proceedings with the goal of making it prohibitively expensive for a party with less resources to continue. I'd say that counts as the law having something to say before a courtroom (or a verdict) is reached
Why don't you make your own immersive world and make a website about that? Why not make a website about another game that does not oppose fan projects?
If you sell or publish your work, and especially if people buy it from you, then it becomes part of the culture of our societies. It is right then that you lose some control, especially if you've made enough money to support you for a period long enough to make a new work/innovation -- it would be stupid of us to make IPR so strong that people who had been supported to become creators/innovators were then encouraged to stop.
Culture works in a space where shared experiences are remixed, where past cultural experiences are reworked.
We need to respect the givers of those IPR rights and respect shared culture a little more IMO.
This is of course my own personal opinion and in no way relates to my employment.
I think projects like this should be allowed to exist and that eventually people will grow very tired of how restrictive copyright law is and demand changes, but until that happens, I hope these types of projects continue to be created and spread in violation of the law for as long as possible until the lawyers finally come after them.
It's better that we see what kinds of things we could have without oppressive copyright laws and be upset when they are taken from us than for people to refuse to start cool projects just because they are doomed to be shutdown.