Holy shit, in a see of constantly repeating the same points, the opposition party presents something new for me to respond to.
3LollipopZ wrote:Against common sense I'm still in here...
Serious questions, when a creation takes place who should dictate what happens with that creation? Shouldn't the creator?
A real philosophical question, Does mother TRULY know whats best for me? I think we all know the answer to that question. If she doesnt, does that mean I can ignore her? If she does, should I be free to make my own mistakes anyway?
The assumption that a creator owns his works outside of any physical copy he keeps for himself is a dogma i will truly never understand.
If shared for money or for free, does the onus of responsibility change?
Does the very act of sharing or creation itself give someone other than the creator the 'right'(s) to change what the creator has dictated?
Yes, the ability to change something, the curiosity of what could be made of this thing if the creator was not holding his customers back is reason enough to explore this. We shouldnt have to wait until the author is dead and his copyright expired to see if we can improve mankind by tweaking these works. A whole lifetime that man could of had one more possible piece to any of the puzzles man is constantly turning up. Maybe redesigning that scalpel a little will save lives, too bad the scalpel company has copyright and doesnt want anyone to try anything with their product.
I, although a hypocrite, believe a worker deserves his wages.
A consumer, during purchase or trade, willing signs over their rights to the sellers terms & conditions.
And i think terms and conditions are a load of crap, you shouldnt be able to tell a person what to do with the thing you sold them after they walk away from you. If you REALLY wanted to control what happened, then you shouldnt sell it, you open yourself up to the risk they will modify it, and with digital media, it isnt even a risk, but a guarantee your conditions will be ignored.
An agreement, contract, or covenant is entered into during the transaction, which can be, and should be, enforced by covenant parties.
Good luck with that "enforcement" thing. I really hope that doesnt turn out to be a huge waste of time for ya.
In regards to the digital world, at what point does ones rights change? At what point does that covenant become worthless?
The covenant was worthless even before the parties made it, thats wich cannot be promised in earnest, should not be promised at all, this is the defintion of being "unreasonable" It is Unreasonable for an artist to assume he can maintain that level of control over what he has made if he seels it, if you have to ask why, you really arnt thinking too hard a bout it. or you havnt been reading this thread.
I now pay for the privilege to play Factorio. I willingly signed over my rights to the Terms of Service. The same ToS that I agreed for Factorio staff not to sell my personal details, not to do what they wish with my credit card, not to keylog my machine with updates, not to program malicious code into updates. Rights that I happily paid for.
I protected myself from all of those possibilities despite the terms of service, if i got screwed by the devs, I would deserve it for unreasonably assuming it was safe to use my credit card on the internet, or that I didnt need antivirus, etc etc. It isnt that safe, things like that happen all the time, thats why I'm EXPECTED to protect myself, or not complain about it when I get screwed over. I''m sorry we live in a world like that, but fool you once, shame on me, fool you several million-billion times, and I think you have created a good basis for why the terms of service are not a reasonable thing to have respect for.