|
Post by paladin on Mar 4, 2012 8:49:09 GMT -9
Yip, gilius, I as a non-English native speaker understand 'Hoard' in the same way like you. Gem Hoard versus Orc Horde ... .
|
|
|
Post by josedominguez on Mar 4, 2012 9:51:19 GMT -9
That's exactly the way I looked at it...... I call my stuff 'Jose'd Hordes' because I work in 15mm and make loads of them. The forum is a treasure hoard. Jim knew what he was doing when he called it a hoard.
|
|
|
Post by aviphysics on Mar 5, 2012 8:52:18 GMT -9
I know a lot of people disagree with how that works and that might change with time (maybe it's already changing) but disliking the law doesn't make it less valid. I don't outright disagree with your entire post but just wanted to address this one point as it is a pet peeve of mine. The fact that something is illegal just means that you can get in trouble for it. Being a law does not convey validity. Lots of things are legal and illegal that shouldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by aviphysics on Mar 5, 2012 9:18:40 GMT -9
The analogy I use for that sort of thing is an apple tree. Let's say you have an apple tree in your backyard and you've told your neighbors that they're welcome to take an apple anytime they like. So, you're the dude with free apples, and every day passing neighbors help themselves to an apple on their way past, and it's all happiness and sunshine. One day, your apple tree dies because it got zapped by a lightning bolt. Suddenly, no more free apples for your neighbors. Let's say you decide you're not going to replant that apple tree for any number of perfectly legitimate reasons--the smoldering stump and concomitant absence of apples in your backyard is the implicit expression that the days of you being Mr. Free Apples are over. By your logic, Mr. Free Apples would have to knock on every neighbor's door and act like the Soup Nazi, which seems unnecessary to me. For me, the stump and lack of apples is evidence enough that I'm probably gonna have to find another source of apples. In Internet terms, the stump is the 404 page where my favorite hobby website used to be, and the free apples are the articles or whatever it used to provide for my consumption as a visitor. This analogy doesn't really work for me. First, the apples have a unit cost. If the tree doesn't have apples on it you can't take one whether you are allowed to or not. Second is that Mr Free Apples didn't design the tree. He himself got a tree from somewhere and planted the thing. So if someone copied the tree by planting some of its seeds then why should he care? For the analogy to work better we could talk about Doctor Free Apples who designed a superior genetically modified apple tree that produced more and better apples. Then one of his neighbors took an apple or graft or whatever and without asking grew his own apple tree. Whether that was moral or not is hard to say. I would say it probably is not... but could I imagine that under the right circumstances it could be. The superior apple tree is abandoned by Doctor Free Apples when he gets a new job in Florida. It continues to produce apples for many years until it dies for whatever reason. However, one of the neighbors had planned ahead and kept cuttings or apple seeds or whatever. He tries to contact Doctor Free Apples but is unable to. He decides to grow a replacement superior apple tree anyway such that everyone can still enjoy the great apples. I would say that this case is moral.
|
|
|
Post by aviphysics on Mar 5, 2012 9:33:18 GMT -9
Sorry for the triple post but there is just one more point I would like to put forth before calling it a day.
In talking strictly about morality it seems safe to say that there is some point at which we are all okay with copying the works of others for redistribution without permission.
Do any of you believe that it is immoral to play Mozart's music or post a picture of a van Gogh painting?
I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that no one on this board believes either is immoral. So given that as a baseline we need no longer discuss whether or not it is immoral to distribute abandoned works, but simply under what specific conditions it is or is not moral.
BTW I believe that basing morality on law is the tale wagging the dog. The number of unjust laws in the world makes such errors tragic to me.
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on Mar 5, 2012 11:03:20 GMT -9
And this resulting discussion was why I started this thread. There are a lot of good points made. That is what I was looking for.
I still think that one of the major points on whether use of material found through Internet Archive is what is the intended use. Personal use is different than posting it somewhere for others to grab.
I had used Fiddlers Green as an example earlier. I have no problem using their old gift cards. There is a page that explicitly tells what is permitted to be done with these Freebee items. The same page is attached to a lot of their Freebees, Sample Downloads, or whatever they are calling them at the time. I appreciate that. Most people don't take the time to decide what they are willing to accept, much less spell it out. You have to respect that.
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Mar 5, 2012 13:07:04 GMT -9
I know a lot of people disagree with how that works and that might change with time (maybe it's already changing) but disliking the law doesn't make it less valid. I don't outright disagree with your entire post but just wanted to address this one point as it is a pet peeve of mine. The fact that something is illegal just means that you can get in trouble for it. Being a law does not convey validity. Lots of things are legal and illegal that shouldn't be. I completely agree with you. It's just that ignoring the law is dodging the question and in the end you still might get in trouble, as for many people there's only the law and abiding (or not) by it regardless of other reasons. In response to your other post, I agree that some sort of common ethics should be the basis for law and not the other way around. These ethics evolve to include situations that previously didn't exist like the electronic digital medium and laws should adapt. Bringing the existing law to discussion in every possible venue is, to me, a reasonable way to help in that process.
|
|
|
Post by hackbarth on Mar 5, 2012 17:04:12 GMT -9
I don't outright disagree with your entire post but just wanted to address this one point as it is a pet peeve of mine. The fact that something is illegal just means that you can get in trouble for it. Being a law does not convey validity. Lots of things are legal and illegal that shouldn't be. I completely agree with you. It's just that ignoring the law is dodging the question and in the end you still might get in trouble, as for many people there's only the law and abiding (or not) by it regardless of other reasons. In response to your other post, I agree that some sort of common ethics should be the basis for law and not the other way around. These ethics evolve to include situations that previously didn't exist like the electronic digital medium and laws should adapt. Bringing the existing law to discussion in every possible venue is, to me, a reasonable way to help in that process. That is a point to which I agree. While it's simple to state that if something is against the law it must be wrong and vice versa, it's simply isn't so. Law is a way to regulate society but not always is just or right. As it stands I believe that current copyright laws are over reaching and too abusive. Of course we have to follow the law, but this shouldn't be equated to an admission that the law is always correct, and in the field of copyright the laws are notoriously controverted, which makes the debating of the ethical side of this issue more interesting than most. The best way to deal with that is when the author explicitly chooses a license, by opting for some flavor of CC license or by stating outright in text what he want to be done with his production. For example there's a multitude of yahoo groups dedicated to showcase mods of Crusiau's minis, but he never took the trouble of stating what is the license for his models. Should he simply let his site disappear, should all that other work be erased as well?
|
|
|
Post by Rhannon on Mar 6, 2012 1:50:02 GMT -9
ok ... just I can't ...
I have read many opinions and many examples ... and I think they are all correct because ultimately they are, imho, all different sides of the same diamond ( excuse me for example and for the bad english. It 's very difficult for me to express articulated thoughts in a correct and understandable english when I read it pretty well )
My first rule: law is law. Respect it is always right. Whether we like it or not. At least as long as is humanly, ethically, morally possible.
This matter, because sometimes it is good to remember the real subject which is discussed and not to abstract too much imho, is a theme that allows we to observe the rules even if we do not like them.
But sometimes the actual circumstances exceeding the limits of theoretical. In real life it is impossible to fit reality in accordance with theoretical. We must ensure that the theory covers, broadly, the reality so that the principle of the rules is still followed. Why are the principles that must be respected, not always possbile to respect written laws. Because theory is one thing and sometimes real-life is another thing.
This is what I try to explain to my police officers when they start their service. ;D
Now, obout our real thread, digital productions and internet bring us face to face with a new real ( objective, material, concrete ... ) problem.
The potential infinite multiplication of objects. so,example, if I write a novel and print a thousand copies I can only sell a thousand copies but if I do it an e-book I can sell one hundred copies as well as ten thousand.
The first problem with digital is the numbers' uncertainty ( this problem is is secondary to our main theme but it exist so I talked about it )
The other problem is related to the intention of doing. Every action has a consequence, every decision, every choice implies responsibility and consequence.
If I free a thousand ( but can also be a number much larger, potentially infinite since we're talking about digital files ) balloons in the sky I should know before that some of these can be caught from other people which can free them in other directions and that I, from first time, will not have control over them.
so if I don't like that my personal informations traveling on internet I do not put them on the net. It is my choice and my responsibility.
Simply ... some choices can not be changed after we have made them. There are only their effects. This isn't theory it is reality.
Your free works ( works from this forum's users ) are now on dozens of other forums, blogs ...
Now ... it is very difficult to retrieve all balloons. In life sometimes you can change your mind, sometimes you can't change past actions.
An administrative ( and penal ) law in Italy establishes rules for the abandonment of things ( ending of things ).
One of its principles is about the intention of abandonment and about the disinterest of a thing. These are our choices and become our responsibilities and consequences become our too.
If I let my new TV close to the dumpsters, it is my clear intention to abandon it. If anyone goes and gets it this is not theft.
If I abandon my house and someone can come in, without making break-ins, and takes an old abandoned object ...
So, I'm sorry for my confused words, I think that a free digital file, when left, can be taken because this was the author's first intention.
He has, imho, an ethical obligation, if it is still interested, to understand what he like, if it is possible, otherwise he says tha he lost his interest about thing.
only one problem, from an ethical point of view, remains, imho.
before a free thing, after a commercial thing.
Time is another dimension. And another problem. ;D
the only exception that comes to my mind are the Jim's ( Onemonk ) files. For a certain period they are being distributed free of charge.
Before they are commercial files ( I've paid them all, some twice ) and now they are back commercial files ( From Sanity Studios ).
But even in this case it is clear my thought. It is a matter of IP. Not law ( only laws ) but ethical and respect (above the written laws too, imho ).
It is piracy taking these files and/or redistribute them. Because the new intentions, the change of an old intention, are known things.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Mar 6, 2012 6:13:00 GMT -9
Very Wise Rhannon. I can't disagree with a thing! It seems to me the Italian "abandonment" rules make more sense than the "automatic copyright" laws of the United States in this case. As a Canadian, I consider myself impartial on this matter. It does bring up another point for those who think it is most simple "just to follow the law." The internet is an international "place," with citizens from many countries participating, so which countries laws should take presidence? I mostly am impressed with your two main points. When the creator's intents are known, they should be respected. But if the creator released his work "into the wild" we shouldn't be asked to chase him down and ask if he still wants it out there running around.
|
|
|
Post by Rhannon on Mar 6, 2012 7:27:35 GMT -9
mmm ... cowboyleland ... in effect I have simplified discourse about italian laws. ;D
In Italy we have hundreds of thousands of rules. Criminal ( or penal ), administrative, public, civil ... and thousands of other rules about the application of rules.
This is one of our problems on the slowness of the justice's application ( besides the fact that before the Roman legislation and then the post-revolutionary french legislative coding are too stiff/rigid our legal system unlike an Anglo-Saxon system ). Now we have rules about all. on how you should hang out the laundry or as you walk the dog. ;D ;D ;D
That is not expressly forbidden is always allowed. So people ( honest people ) do not think more than the laws, above the laws. Whether something is a harm to others, a disorder, or or if in any case one thing, even if it is not prohibited, is not morally correct.
Imho we're losing the habit, with so many laws, to think, to assess about these.
And we denounce all for everything. because the law is sacred (when appropriate) ;D ;D ;D
But my previous post is not about laws (Italian, American, or international). It was about respect, fairness, but also the common sense of people.
Ciao
|
|
|
Post by dragnoz on Mar 6, 2012 8:06:10 GMT -9
well as a content creator I create content to be used by other people... The biggest enjoyment i get is actually seeing people use it and searching for it when its gone....
One of the reasons I have come out of paper modeling retirement was because of someone showing such an interest and support in my historic work and they could probably not find it on wayback machine. im not naming names but we all know who loves suing wayback machine ;-)
Anyway i digress, If I put up something as free and i did not explicitly say on the actual design that its not for redistribution then it will be fair game as that is exactly what i intended it to be.
However what would severely peeve me off is if something i put up for free went on sale by someone else, today, tomorrow or in ten years time... whether i abandoned it or not. It would severely demotivate and demoralize me.
Its broadly speaking one of the reasons i went into "design retirement" a few years back.
as to the issue of law.... this is a tricky one... data is governed by the laws of the country its hosted in, well in theory but due to all kinds of laws being passed such as sopa and the like its now a grey area.
but no matter what... in the end of the day, if something was put up for free and is used for non profit based activities and in no way is used in a defamatory way to the creator ... there is absolutely noting noone can get upset about.
|
|
|
Post by Rhannon on Mar 6, 2012 8:19:14 GMT -9
dragnoz: I totally agree with you And if you say on the actual design that its not for redistribution, then the ethical rule is this. This, free, work should not be redistributed, beacuse I know your intention. Then I will also be disappointed because I think it will be lost, but the right moral is respect your intention. ;D ;D ;D Instead this is theft imho.
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on Mar 6, 2012 8:22:09 GMT -9
Not claiming to be the person using Wayback Machine, I would like to state that I miss seeing the bird perched on top of the gate ...
Dragnoz will surely know what I mean
|
|
|
Post by dragnoz on Mar 6, 2012 8:58:53 GMT -9
I have no idea what you talking about... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Rhannon on Mar 6, 2012 9:09:40 GMT -9
Wow! A great eagle.
Were I can download her?
|
|
|
Post by aviphysics on Mar 6, 2012 13:34:21 GMT -9
hmmm....
Maybe we could start a website selling taxidermied small animals for gaming.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Mar 6, 2012 14:43:38 GMT -9
First offering a Were-squirrel mod of the little bugger that keeps gnawing his way into my composter
|
|
|
Post by josedominguez on Mar 9, 2012 3:53:13 GMT -9
The main issue is that technology has overtaken lawmaking and has made a lot of things so easy that morality sometimes takes a back seat... many people will download something because it is so easy without even thinking about the implications. Ask 100 people How many of you would walk into a shop and steal a book? Now ask the same 100 how many of you would download a copy from the internet without paying for it. If something has been posted on the internet with no conditions then it has been 'shared', look at the terminology on the photo sharing sites : photobucket etc... it says 'share your image', if you don't say otherwise then you are agreeing to 'share it' I would say that this is pretty much stating that it's OK to pass it around FOR FREE that's what share means. If you say 'don't share it' then that's also very clear, although that is absolutely impossible to enforce, so if you don't want it shared, you really can't post it. That's the limitation of the technology, once it's out there, it's gone. For every one of us who will respect your wishes there's 1000 who won't even think about it, not out of immorality but because they don't even realise it's an issue because 'it's on the internet'. I don't like it, I personally think that everyone deserves to be recognised for their work, but there is nothing we can do about it with the state of technology as it is, just raise our own kids to respect other peoples work, then again, this is going to be tricky when they all have Iphones welded to their hands and can obtain any info, image or copyrighted material in seconds...... we are old enough to remember when everything was earned and all objects had material value, but many of the things that young people covet are now 'vapour' and available free..... music, books, rules, games. How do you persuade parents that they need to take this 'freedom to steal' away from their kids and start paying for it all themselves? Think how much of your 'pocket money' etc... went on things that a child can now access for free (when things are 'real' it's a lot easier to recognise what is immoral, what is theft). We are worrying about accessing abandoned material from artists we can't contact. While I spend my days explaining to my pupils why downloading movies that haven't even been released in the UK is theft, then trying to explain the same thing to their parents. It's just so common, it's viewed as acceptable and victimless by many. Keep it up, many TV channels have already realised that making quality drama etc...is a waste of time as it's far more cost effective to make I'm a celebrity, dancing, big brother on ice and similar pap. People tune in an watch it and it didn't require any imagination or writing....... which is fine, it's disposable entertainment. But why make a quality drama etc... when the minute it's been aired once it's fileshared across the world?
|
|