Stage 9 gets cease and desist order from CBS

[Professor Zoom]

very good, I can see this on google too. Though how one obtains a copyright is a red herring. Trademark, copyright, and patents are all IP rights which is what I'm talking about, because you're to distinguish them is also besides the point.

A red herring? I'm not even going to ask why. I distinguish them, because 1. they are three different things and 2. because people confuse them.

1. Stage 9 in this case. They put in a couple of years work for nothing.

No. For one, they did it, I'm assuming, because they enjoyed doing it. That's not nothing. They knew they weren't going to ever charge for it--not that it would matter to you, you would just take it for free anyway. And they knew they were playing in someone else's sandbox. So, it's not abuse. Not even close.

2. The right to make a copy hense copyright

Right! I, as the OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT, have the RIGHT to sell a copy of my work. YOU have the right to BUY it.

It's enforceable to blatant violators. Speeding is more enforceable than copyright infringement, everyone speeds and only a small fraction of instances result in law enforcement doing anything about it.

Because speeding is a very specific and measurable thing. Sometimes copyright infringement isn't. Sometimes it actually IS transformative and IS fair use. But, sometimes, it's pretty blatant. IE, Axanar.

But that's no reason to get rid of IP laws.

Usually all that gets done is the ISP sends the consumer a letter to stop what they're doing. That's what prompted SOPA which didn't go over well.

Right. That's the first step. Sending a letter saying: stop stealing shit. Or we will sue you.
Would you rather everyone go through the hassle of having to go to court?

You really need to do some more research on this stuff.

[Alanis Morrisette] Ironic. [/Alanis Morrisette]

 

[fireproof78]

unjust: not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

This is now a contradiction as preivious posts have defined this as "amoral." So, justice is neither relevant in this definition of semantics which has had its goal posts moved so often that hockey players are in the 9th inning of the Super Bowl.

Making someone pay for something that someone can get without paying. I wouldn't expect someone to pay for something I created if they could get it for free also.

That's fine. Art isn't free. Creation isn't free. That's the part that is being missed.

1. Stage 9 in this case. They put in a couple of years work for nothing.

In that instance, they knew it was a risk as the current law is very clear. Derivative works, no matter how much work is put in to them (which apparently has no value because IP should be free), is still a copyright violation because they do not have the rights to that property, or to copy that idea in its expression as CBS has defined Star Trek.

Regardless of your moral equivocation, the law is currently the law. Want to change it? Go for it. But CBS lives in the real world, where their real IP is being pirated on a daily basis, creating money lost to them. It takes power away from the creators and the property owners and violates their rights. Period. That's a moral argument and a legal one. One that is being repeatedly dodged.

Finally, if IP content is created for free then why the fuss of Stage 9's work? Obviously, that work has no value and thus it has no impact on Stage 9 as a whole, from the way this discussion has gone. Their art shouldn't cost them any thing, by the logic of this thread.

 

[Professor Zoom]

1. Stage 9 in this case. They put in a couple of years work for nothing.

Also, you are free to take the idea of building a 3D model of a spaceship, just not a Star Trek spaceship, and put it online. You should do that. Make your own. And no one would be able to stop you.

You should totally get on that.

 

[fireproof78]

Also, you are free to take the idea of building a 3D model of a spaceship, just not a Star Trek spaceship, and put it online. You should do that. Make your own. And no one would be able to stop you.

You should totally get on that.

It doesn't cost anything either

 

[marsh8472]

This is now a contradiction as preivious posts have defined this as "amoral." So, justice is neither relevant in this definition of semantics which has had its goal posts moved so often that hockey players are in the 9th inning of the Super Bowl.

That's fine. Art isn't free. Creation isn't free. That's the part that is being missed.

In that instance, they knew it was a risk as the current law is very clear. Derivative works, no matter how much work is put in to them (which apparently has no value because IP should be free), is still a copyright violation because they do not have the rights to that property, or to copy that idea in its expression as CBS has defined Star Trek.

Regardless of your moral equivocation, the law is currently the law. Want to change it? Go for it. But CBS lives in the real world, where their real IP is being pirated on a daily basis, creating money lost to them. It takes power away from the creators and the property owners and violates their rights. Period. That's a moral argument and a legal one. One that is being repeatedly dodged.

Finally, if IP content is created for free then why the fuss of Stage 9's work? Obviously, that work has no value and thus it has no impact on Stage 9 as a whole, from the way this discussion has gone. Their art shouldn't cost them any thing, by the logic of this thread.

haha sure it is a bit confusing. When I think about it and try to explain it, I'm a bit of a nihilist and don't believe in moral absolutes. But I also have a human nature side that makes moral judgements anyway. I got alittle side-tracked with First Amendment is an artificial right discussion. But if you're not satisfied with my answers, why not do some research and see what other people are saying who oppose intellectual property laws?

 

[fireproof78]

haha sure it is a bit confusing. When I think about it and try to explain it, I'm a bit of a nihilist and don't believe in moral absolutes. But I also have a human nature side that makes moral judgements anyway. I got alittle side-tracked with First Amendment is an artificial right discussion. But if you're not satisfied with my answers, why not do some research and see what other people are saying who oppose intellectual property laws?

It's not that I'm not satisfied. As I stated previously, I already read them. I don't agree with them at all because it misses the point of what it costs to make content. And, if there is a cost, then the creator is deserving of the fruits of their labor. And again, if content creation doesn't cost to make then why be upset about Stage 9?

 

[urbandefault]

But if you're not satisfied with my answers, why not do some research and see what other people are saying who oppose intellectual property laws?

I suspect that they don't know any more about the subject than you do, so why bother?

 

[fireproof78]

I suspect that they don't know any more about the subject than you do, so why bother?

I thought for sure that degree in psychology would be perfect for interpreting laws!!!

 

[Professor Zoom]

It doesn't cost anything either

Nor requires special skills that one may have spent time and money developing.

 

[fireproof78]

Nor requires special skills that one may have spent time and money developing.

Or, you know, making a fancy dinner. I mean, it's not like one needs a particular set of skills to throw stuff together. Any one can do that.

 

[Jedman67]

1. Stage 9 in this case. They put in a couple of years work for nothing.
2. The right to make a copy hense copyright

They aren't being abused. They STOLE something; and are being asked, ever so politely to stop stealing it.

 

[marsh8472]

They aren't being abused. They STOLE something; and are being asked, ever so politely to stop stealing it.

I'm sure they would say they aren't happy about it.

Here's someone else talking about it instead of me https://www.newswise.com/articles/view/549822/?sc=dwhn

It's not that I'm not satisfied. As I stated previously, I already read them. I don't agree with them at all because it misses the point of what it costs to make content. And, if there is a cost, then the creator is deserving of the fruits of their labor. And again, if content creation doesn't cost to make then why be upset about Stage 9?

I think the Stage 9 project proved that people can still create things without having legal incentives of copyright protection.

I suppose we should see what star trek has to say about this:

from Star Trek First Contact

LILY: It took me six months to scrounge up enough titanium just to build a four-metre cockpit.. How much did this thing cost?
PICARD: The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the twenty-fourth century.
LILY: No money! That means you don't get paid.
PICARD: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. ...We work to better ourselves ...and the rest of humanity.

We do see a concept of copyright enforced in voyager episode "Author, Author" but at the end of the episode other EMH's appear to be distributing "Photons Be Free" without the Doctor's consent. Though the concept of a derived work does not appear to exist since the EMH made only slight modifications to the voyager crew and turned it into a story and Tom made a modified version of "Photons Be Free". No expectation for financial compensation either of course.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I think the Stage 9 project proved that people can still create things without having legal incentives of copyright protection.

They created it because the love Star Trek, and they wanted to express that. But, for whatever reason, CBS pulled the plug, as both parties agreed they had every right to do.

Now, this doesn't stop you from building a 3D model of a space ship of your own design in your own universe, you can do it for the love of it, and NO ONE can take it away.

I suppose we should see what star trek has to say about this:

In Star Trek, they can LITERALLY make food from energy. Of course that changes the economics of things. And until that point, reality of the present is gonna have to guide economics.

 

[urbandefault]

I'm sure they would say they aren't happy about it.

Here's someone else talking about it instead of me https://www.newswise.com/articles/view/549822/?sc=dwhn

I think the Stage 9 project proved that people can still create things without having legal incentives of copyright protection.

I suppose we should see what star trek has to say about this:

from Star Trek First Contact

We do see a concept of copyright enforced in voyager episode "Author, Author" but at the end of the episode other EMH's appear to be distributing "Photons Be Free" without the Doctor's consent. Though the concept of a derived work does not appear to exist since the EMH made only slight modifications to the voyager crew and turned it into a story and Tom made a modified version of "Photons Be Free". No expectation for financial compensation either of course.

Regardless of what you think, Stage 9 didn't create anything. It was a derivative work, based on an IP that was not theirs.

Linking to a website in support of your shaky position makes no difference; it's just more meaningless drivel.

Quoting Star Trek, besides being a little pathetic, is futile. It's nothing but made up dialog by screenwriters, not legal scholars.

I think you're hopelessly naive about the way the real world works, at least in this case.

And your little dog, too.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'm sure they would say they aren't happy about it.

Here's someone else talking about it instead of me https://www.newswise.com/articles/view/549822/?sc=dwhn

For a lark, I clicked. Most of what they want is about patent law, and hilariously, one of the rubrics for determining a patent is if the inventor can prove "their invention has social value." Who determines that? How are you deciding something is of "social" value?

But, then, a patent would be granted, so... they aren't REALLY talking about getting rid of patent law, just modifying it... so... it doesn't really support your case AT ALL.

 

[marsh8472]

Regardless of what you think, Stage 9 didn't create anything. It was a derivative work, based on an IP that was not theirs.

Quoting a website in support of your shaky position makes no difference; it's just more meaningless drivel.

Quoting Star Trek, besides being a little pathetic, is futile. It's nothing but made up dialog by screenwriters, not legal scholars.

I think you're hopelessly naive about the way the real world works, at least in this case.

And your little dog, too.

Sure they did, they created the app. I bet you couldn't do that. They didn't create from scratch a lot of the visuals and shapes but the physics, collision detection, who knows what else was created by them. I would have expected a trek culture not be so discriminating about the idea of a free world.

For a lark, I clicked. Most of what they want is about patent law, and hilariously, one of the rubrics for determining a patent is if the inventor can prove "their invention has social value." Who determines that? How are you deciding something is of "social" value?

But, then, a patent would be granted, so... they aren't REALLY talking about getting rid of patent law, just modifying it... so... it doesn't really support your case AT ALL.

As with the argument for more gun control, if "criminals" are going to infringe all they want regardless of what the law says, what's the point in having the law? You could still appeal to people's charitable nature to the creator regardless if the laws exist or not.

 

[urbandefault]

Sure they did, they created the app. I bet you couldn't do that. They didn't create from scratch a lot of the visuals and shapes but the physics, collision detection, who knows what else was created by them. I would have expected a trek culture not be so discriminating about the idea of a free world.

It's a derivative work, based upon an existing IP.

"Trek culture."

 

[marsh8472]

Overall I find everyone's arguments equally unconvincing. I don't care about making laws that try to force people to be charitable to creators, just like I don't expect them to help me out either or that they would even want to. It seems like it would normally be a wash since I remain equally unconvinced too. Except I had to go back and forth with what? 5 people? We'll just say I won by handicap points then

 

[Professor Zoom]

Sure they did, they created the app. I bet you couldn't do that. They didn't create from scratch a lot of the visuals and shapes but the physics, collision detection, who knows what else was created by them. I would have expected a trek culture not be so discriminating about the idea of a free world.

And yet, you don't hold any value to their work. You don't think you should pay for it.
Star Trek maybe an ideal to strive for, but, while people have to make money to put food on their table: pay for your shit.

As with the argument for more gun control, if "criminals" are going to infringe all they want regardless of what the law says, what's the point in having the law? You could still appeal to people's charitable nature to the creator regardless if the laws exist or not.

I don't know what this has to do with my post, but, sure, I'll bite with this point. The legal system is one of consequences, you do something wrong, you will face consequences. It's supposed to act as a deterrent. Of course there would be people who break the law. But, MOST people don't.

Are you advocating that we get rid of all laws because SOME people break them? Then, you don't mind if I take your computer?

Overall I find everyone's arguments equally unconvincing. I don't care about making laws that try to force people to be charitable to creators, just like I don't expect them to help me out either or that they would even want to. It seems like it would normally be a wash since I remain equally unconvinced too. Except I had to go back and forth with what? 5 people? We'll just say I won by handicap points then

Oh, I long ago realized there was no convincing you. You aren't my audience. It's those who might come following your breadcrumbs of silly thinking. They might learn something.

 

[fireproof78]

I think the Stage 9 project proved that people can still create things without having legal incentives of copyright protection.

Stage 9 can create all the original work that they want. They cannot create derivative work, no matter what effort is put in to it, and expect the same protections, either legally or morally. Why? It is CBS' property.

Overall I find everyone's arguments equally unconvincing. I don't care about making laws that try to force people to be charitable to creators, just like I don't expect them to help me out either or that they would even want to. It seems like it would normally be a wash since I remain equally unconvinced too. Except I had to go back and forth with what? 5 people? We'll just say I won by handicap points then

No, the laws exist to protect the creators and their rights to their property. Period. By copying something you are taking away from a creator their right to control their property.

Star Trek, as wonderful as it is, is not legal precedent and garners no favor here in terms of supporting the idea. It is clear that we have a different point of view of property rights and that's fine. So, to my mind, to deprive someone of control of their property, and the free expression or redaction thereof, is problematic as best, and invasive at worst.