Jump to content

What do you think of Europe's copyright article 13?

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Ramikad said:

Not a lawyer, but I don't think it will. From what I understand, Article 13 only targets websites making profit from its uploaded user content, while the Hub isn't - it doesn't sell mods and it only relies on donations to carry on.


I think this post is warning about GDPR including article 13.

In fact, that topic is requesting for erasure of personal content. If I were Europian, too, I would do the same thing in order to not to be captured by law.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

I am very concerned about how copyrights law use (abuse) is going totally madness and insane on that age.

web should be a neutral place for sharing culture and contains between all folks of the world. if you are jealous of your artworks, not update on web and release with traditional media, not?

but worlds is not so altruistic. and instead of preserve the freedom of web, web is even more censured by lobbies. copyright is not used more for defend  rights of artist, is used for preserve econimical intererst of society that own the rights of an opera.

let me explain me:

i mean, defend author right and be sure they have retribution for their job is correct. but copyright system not do that on any way.

i am a writer , but i had very bad experience with editor houses. on videogame world that is even more worst. i am not a lawyer, but i am using JKA cause i want to make an indie game of my project so i documented myself about all copyright world and also about origin of copyright, talking also with a lawyer for that.

well the situation is... complicated. at the end the answer is: Depend.

So, let's go in order.
in antiquity, copyright did not exist. every artistic work, sculpture and painting, was invariably inspired by the artistic currents of the time, whether pictorial or sculptural.
this has continued for thousands of years, and this has allowed the great production of the cultural heritage of humanity. all the artistic wonders of the world and of all existing peoples.

in the Middle Ages, there was usually patronage: the artists had the talent and the wisdom, but usually they did not have the money and the means to make themselves come true. so they turned to nobles and aristocrats, illustrating businesses, ideas, projects, works and obtaining funding to carry them out. in exchange they obtained hospitality, food, accommodation, everything they needed to earn a living and continue their production. at the same time, their patrons had a return in public image, because they became benefactors and patrons of culture. if they were wizards, wise men and scientists, this also allowed the advancement of knowledge and technique, producing innovations that brought greater prosperity to the kingdom or city for which artists and scholars work.
even this system of artists financed by government figures was not so bad. there would certainly have been no masterpieces such as sculptures and works of the Renaissance, without such a system, there would have been no Divine Comedy by Dante (who after leaving Florence lived from court to court for the various statues of Italy) nor Leonardo's works, and not even the discovery of America, as Columbus was financed by the Spanish royalty to carry out his exploratory expedition in search of a western passage for the Indies.

we arrive at the end of the 1700s ... and the "troubles" begin.
At the beginning of the industrial revolution, James Watt invented a new type of steam engine, more powerful and efficient than the previous ones. he was running out of money and wanted to earn from his invention.
with the support of some politicians within the government of england, he obtained a law, the first true and proper copyright law, which gave him the total, complete, universal, exclusive rights of creation, sale and use of his work for twenty years.
and so he had the first patent in history and ...
... nothing was done.
because for the rest of his life he continued to produce and sell old-fashioned vaqpore machines. did not have the means and funds to mass-produce the new prototype.
this did not help him or humanity. if he had turned to some industrial illustrating his machine, things probably would have gone very differently, he could have obtained mass production and obtained a good part of the profits from his use, but this was not the case. upon his death, his steam engine became public and ...
everyone started making it and using it. in short, copyright law had slowed and blocked progress and the industrial revolution by 20 years.

In the nineteenth century we have many inventors who make all the technologies behind the modern technology that we use every day, radios, electricity, lamps, appliances, cars and so on. and here there are rivers patents. there is the emblematic case of the invention of the telephone, which took place simultaneously, both by bell and meucci, one without the knowledge of the other, and which, unfortunately, for meucci resolves into a stalemate because bell lo preceded to register the patent for a few months. (although at the moment the authorship of the telephone is divided between both scientists, if I remember correctly.)

20th century:
I mean, walt disney creates Mickey Mouse and ... his company, between films and comics, soon becomes a giant. And it puts pressure on the American congress: in order not to lose paternity on Mickey Mouse and its characters and continue to have the exclusive right to produce and make stories (and earn on it, above all), he convinces Congress to increase the duration of the copyright completely insane levels: 70 years ... from the death ... of the author.
1: protect the company, not the author.
2: if the author is dead, what does this folia do? is it about the rights of the heirs? this also makes no sense, and it is not about rights, but about greed.
in short, with this system if an artist produces a work and is successful, bam, he becomes rich and spends the rest of his life dedicating himself solely to that work and making money on it. or, precisely because he has become rich, he no longer needs to work and decides to spend the rest of his life in comfort and vice.
same thing for the descendants: they can continue to profit from it
at the work of their ancestor, without them having made neinte, only because they had the good fortune of being born as their relatives.
honestly ... do you think, really ... right, this system? (provocative question, I know).

Now, let's get to the current situation ... mmm ...
publishers: a writer creates a work writes a book and now has two options.
1: publish her as an indie author, but she has to do promotion and distribution alone, so in addition to being an artist, she must also be a business man. I honestly believe that an artist cannot do both at the same time, and if he makes art for the sake of money, is he really an artist? that is, you have to live, but the point is that, seeing all the modern authors who promote themselves, I see very little of art. I see more vanity, narcissism and vainglory
option 2:
the author contacts a publishing house. IF he is lucky, after six months he receives an answer, after sending the manuscript.
the publishing houses, however, oblige to sign a contract where the artist in question GIVES his copyright to the publishers in exchange for: printing, destruction, promotion of the work and ... 15% of the proceeds (25 if he is lucky, not even fifty fifty!) and this for EVERY book that is published!
we realize that such a thing is not a protection of artists: they lose copyrights, publishers make billions, perhaps even making films over them with cinematographic agreements. the authors honestly have the crumbs left.

music industry: same thing: a singer or compositoire creates a song, and ... but he of suok, earns ONLY with concerts and shows. the rights pass to the record company, (therefore also in this case, the musicians see the crumbs, with respect to the fruit of their work and the actual distribution).

film: well films involve actors, screenwriters, producers etc, who work for the film houses and who are salaried by them. but precisely, they are salaried, none of them own what they accomplish.
that is, the simpsons created matt groening, but they don't belong to him, they belong to the fox !, this is the concept ...
moral of the story? in today's capitalist world, in order to be successful, does an artist necessarily have to sell out?
in such a society, what is copyright used for? well not cerrto to protect the artists, but to protect the interests of the lobby. piracy mostly damages lobbies in the end.

Now we come to the situation of video games. Ah, this is the icing on the cake. the EULA.
which legally do not lack a true and expansive value, because they are substantially those cv contracts that are formed with an "okay" click when you install a game or product. After you pay it.
From what I have read, a contract for legal value must be placed between two parties who are able to discuss and negotiate on an equal footing.
where is equality and the possibility to negotiate here?
you buy a game or a program and vote it that you buy a technical object, and it passes into the hands of the buyer and the purchased object can do what it wants, right? I can use my used shoes again if I want ...
 well for video games apparently not so. because precisely the EULA makes "accept or not use our product" this is not a contract ... it is blackmail! or so I think so.
more than anything else, my concern about the EULA is about the ripping and porting of models. that honestly, explain to me what harm it does to companies that own video game rights?
allows you to create modk, to improve and to enhance their products and also to make them known, also you are not stealing the video game or distributing it in a pirated way, you are using a mass of polygons and textures, to make a quote of something that you love, or to create a derivative work.

I am referring to Frankenstein and kitbashing: disassembling a model into pieces, editing its textures and wireframe, reassembling it into new parts. legamnete this is a copyright infringement, a derviated work that violates the EULA and that is subject to the authors IP, it doesn't matter that you take the 3d model of a mutant carnivorous flower and use it instead to create a fantasicientific building with organic architecture where the petals become landing platforms for spaceships. for the EULA it CANNOT be done, or they say "do it but what you do belongs to us!" coime if someone who sells you the canvas and brushes to make a picture, then he said to you "what you paint belongs to me".
Here, yes, I find this really unfair. nowadays there is a beautiful game with an ediotr called spores that allows you to make creatures, buildings, vehicles, ships etc ... and because of the EULA you cannot use spores as a program to make models for video games ... (leaving behind the fact that the the same company that sold spores together with the game also put a SEC-ROM that controlled the activities of the computers on which spores were installed and which also prevented from installing it on the same PC more than 5 times ...).

Now let's get to my point of view.
I am Italian, not Anglo-Saxon. In Italy there is NO copyright, there is author's rights laws, which dates back to 1970 although it was updated in 2010 as regards internet works. in Italy two things are fought:
- piracy.
- plagiarism.
there is nothing to say about derivative works. instead in America and the UK also for derivative works, it seems that it is forbidden to do them without running the risk of ending up in court.
Yet this is what I asked the lawyer: having to create 12 alien worlds and having no help in doing graphics and assets I should do everything myself. for one person, even doing it as a project on the JKA engine is a bit ... uphill. (and no, I tried unity and unreal and I don't use them anyway for my personal reasons even if there is no day someone doesn't propose to do it).
in short, the bottom line is: is it possible to create characters, animals etc, using parts of other characters or animals?
this cheisi to the lawyer. I mean to say. the Nazi hat of an imperial officer, put it to one of my characters, the samurai mask, to another character, who perhaps has the wings of a mynock, the scuba tank and the scuba fins, all taken and joined by different models, which can also be ripped from other games. (conceding that, if I really rip something, I do it with games that are at least 10 years of age and that are low poly and belong to another era, so I do not damage in any way the economic interests of modern software houses or use HD stuff... and I don't even like HD)
I asked him if this is feasible or if there may be legal trouble.
Well, the Italian legislation in this sense says nothing to the contrary, so technically it can be done. the important thing is that I do not take the character or the artistic creation of another person and sell it clain as my property for myself without putting the due credits. That's wrong, and I agree with that too. i am not a thieve.


About the question of the thread:

As far as the law is concerned ... well .. Europe is trying to impose the current copyright censorship system on all its countries.
I think it's 2 / 3- wrong.
first reason against: censorship of copyrighted content, vs freedom of expression.
second reason: the idea of applying censorship filters on google, youtube etc to protect authors (read, the lobby) is at least incorrect both for point 1, and for the fact that the filters are extremely expensive and that they can only afford them the giants of the web. any small company, blogger or that is seriously damaged, substantially due to this law, ALL that is found in the inetrnet, images, photos, etc. cannot be used for their own project ... which destroys the very foundations of the internet of free trade and sharing of culture. In short, pure madness !!!
Only point in favor of this postmodern 1984 by george orwell?
The fact that the mayors will thus have greater control over the destruction of their works. but this law, in fact, has nothing to do with the rights of the artists, this law is a clash between the lobbies that exploit the copyrights of the artists and that make us billions over VS google, youtube etc.

however, I also tell you one last thing: in Italy something that mji has deeply dejected has recently happened.


TNT village was the main Italian site where it was possible to obtain old films, music and video games (published for more than 5 years, therefore from the economic point of view of the current laws of the hypercapital market, already obsolete because usually, one thing, if njon sells the first 6 months \ 1 year after it is published, it doesn't sell right).
well, it was closed, because the Italian television stations and the lobbies eventually sued the site operators.
This was a real earthquake for us Italians.
I suffer from a rare genetic disease and I spend most of my time between home and hospital. and my mother is also very sick.
we are not in such a healthy condition to go to the cinema or to leave the house unless non is strictly necessary. for me the computer is the only door to the external world that preserves my sanity and allows me to have a dignified life.
Honestly, tntvillage was one of the few places where I could download movies that I can't go to having in the cinema and that, however, the Italian networks never give on TV. and especially if I want to see or listen to a movie, I don't have to wait for the comfort of a broadcaster who broadcasts it at the hour he wants, in short, I want to be free to watch it when I can and I like it more, what the heck.
Here, since the closure of TNT Village, I no longer know how to get hold of entertainment. -.-
I jumped back to watch Skywalker's Rise in Italian ... Chinese subtitled ... sigh.

Well, this is exactly how I think about copyrights:
it might have made sense in the beginning, when

it might have made sense in the beginning, when the deadline was 7-15 years from the publication of a work, because copyright was created to protect artists and at the same time to promote the development of the arts and culture (American constitution). but now it's pure madness! in the internet age, where with a few clicks you copy a file and distribute it to the whole world in a few seconds, it makes no sense!
in short, I think it is appropriate to create a new system of protection for artists and works and to completely reconsider the functioning of all this.
There will also be a way to satisfy artists, lobbies, users and consumers
and consumers / producers, who are artists in turn, aren't they?

PS: i really hope that google translator worked fine. english is not my mother language and if i wrote without it, sure i did some bad grammar mistake. 

if i am talking of delicate things i prefear to be sure to express me correctly.

Ah, about article 13: well for what i know, Yes and Not. if things are inside MODDB or JKHUB i guess theare are not trobules

if a mod contain ported stuff, on JKhub i guess it can be problematic, not on moddbw, when i see there is hosted the warcraft ported mod.

for a law point of view... mmm, well, at moment they need some years before this tyrant law will be effective. on UK and Germany maybe thing are very much worse, but on latin countries as Italy and Spain or slavic country at moment there are not particular troubles. 

but yes, for future, i am very concerned... and also tired of that crazyness. ?





Odeyseis, NumberWan and RJA like this
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...