Loading...
> >

Not To Worry, Friend, "There's Always Another Sale™"

1…9091939596…100

Comments

  • Robert FreiseRobert Freise Posts: 4,573
    L'Adair said:

    I thought I'd weigh in on the whole value vs price stu...

    Oh look! A squirrel!

    wink

    yes yes

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited December 2017
    cdpro_2831bbd990 said:
     
    agent unawares said:

    It's completely different. Losing copyright does not give anyone the right to your physical property, it just gives them the right to make a copy. You lose literally nothing.

    I have sympathy with the whole "I created this, I own the idea forever" mindset, but I genuinely don't believe all of Genghis Khan's descendants all own a tiny portion of his life story, I don't believe Greece should be able to prevent people from rewriting the Odyssey, etc. So at some point there must be a line. Debate has raged for a long time over exactly where that is.

    What you lose is the exclusive right to copy your original work.

    You misunderstand, I am taking the stance that "exclusivity" is not an actual thing that can be lost. Additional people gaining a right is not equal to anyone losing one. Copyrights and patents exist to encourage invention by protecting an author's interest in the result, it is a limitation on another's right to copy, not a granting of rights to the author that gets "lost" when copyright runs out.

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • ZaiZai Posts: 289

    "It's completely different. Losing copyright does not give anyone the right to your physical property, it just gives them the right to make a copy. You lose literally nothing."

    No. It's not yours. The end.

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    Zai said:

    "It's completely different. Losing copyright does not give anyone the right to your physical property, it just gives them the right to make a copy. You lose literally nothing."

    No. It's not yours. The end.

    Centuries of copyright law beg to differ.

  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,942
    edited December 2017
    agent unawares said:
    firewarden said:
    No one should have the right to tell anyone when they don't own something they created, whether it's art, digital models, a house, a statue... That's like telling a descendant of Van Gogh that after his death, the painting hanging in his daughter's house (and I'm making this totally up) has to be removed and placed in a museum. He's been dead 70 years (14 years, whatever), hand over the painting; it no belongs to the public.

    It's completely different. Losing copyright does not give anyone the right to your physical property, it just gives them the right to make a copy. You lose literally nothing.

    I have sympathy with the whole "I created this, I own the idea forever" mindset, but I genuinely don't believe all of Genghis Khan's descendants all own a tiny portion of his life story, I don't believe Greece should be able to prevent people from rewriting the Odyssey, etc. So at some point there must be a line. Debate has raged for a long time over exactly where that is.

    Smacks head against keyboard. Why did I look for ASTI's response? Okay, I should be hanging with my dogs or feeding the semi-feral cats that adopted the back yard but (sorry DivaMakeup) I cannot resist. I am an author. I was a sanctioned photographer for the Drag Boats and had press passes for the NHRA, Monster Trucks etc. I built websites and sold graphic art. Sometimes the contract I agreed to was to hand over all rights. Sometimes I licensed rights to other. Not all licenses were equal like interactive (3d) versus static use (2d). I made the art, I chose to sell it on my terms. DAZ does not have these artists in a strangle hold. They choose how to sell and we buy on those terms. Some authors allow (eg: Stephanie Meyers and Terry Pratchett) allow dirivativeworks while other authors will not tolerate it. But Ghostwriters have no rights and when a PA sells a product to Daz they are like a ghostwriter except Daz adds their name to the product for credit and exposure purposes. The people doing the telling here are the PA's.

     

    Edit: And everything has a time limitation and eventually the public domain makes it's grand entrance. Disney does not own the copyright to expired former artists works even though they act like they do.

    Post edited by ArtAngel on
  • ZaiZai Posts: 289

    It doesn't matter if it's digital. Just because you CAN make a copy, doesn't give you the right, simply because you arbitrarily decided it should be so. If it had no value, you wouldn't want it. Copyright holders do lose something...the right to control their own creations. I fully understand copyright law, as well as IP, trademark, trade dress and more. Yes, there's a time limit as it stands. I don't agree with all of it, but I abide by it. And I'm not talking about ideas...

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    Zai said:

    It doesn't matter if it's digital. Just because you CAN make a copy, doesn't give you the right

    I agree completely! We limit the right of other people to use an original work for a limited time for exactly this reason. It encourages innovation.

  • firewardenfirewarden Posts: 1,486
    edited December 2017
    agent unawares said:
    firewarden said:
    No one should have the right to tell anyone when they don't own something they created, whether it's art, digital models, a house, a statue... That's like telling a descendant of Van Gogh that after his death, the painting hanging in his daughter's house (and I'm making this totally up) has to be removed and placed in a museum. He's been dead 70 years (14 years, whatever), hand over the painting; it no belongs to the public.

    It's completely different. Losing copyright does not give anyone the right to your physical property, it just gives them the right to make a copy. You lose literally nothing.

    I have sympathy with the whole "I created this, I own the idea forever" mindset, but I genuinely don't believe all of Genghis Khan's descendants all own a tiny portion of his life story, I don't believe Greece should be able to prevent people from rewriting the Odyssey, etc. So at some point there must be a line. Debate has raged for a long time over exactly where that is.

    You lose everything. And it isn't the idea; it's the words, artwork, etc. It's the work itself. Twisting what I say into a logical fallacy does not substantiate your argument.

    Post edited by firewarden on
  • BlueIreneBlueIrene Posts: 1,318

    The discussion has deviated considerably from the thread's original purpose, which I vaguely remember was to highlight good deals before they pass by. I admit my eyes are glazing over a bit whenever I look to see if it's got back on topic, but have we really reached the point where we're debating whether we're justified in stealing from each other?

  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,942
    firewarden said:
    agent unawares said:
    firewarden said:
    No one should have the right to tell anyone when they don't own something they created, whether it's art, digital models, a house, a statue... That's like telling a descendant of Van Gogh that after his death, the painting hanging in his daughter's house (and I'm making this totally up) has to be removed and placed in a museum. He's been dead 70 years (14 years, whatever), hand over the painting; it no belongs to the public.

    It's completely different. Losing copyright does not give anyone the right to your physical property, it just gives them the right to make a copy. You lose literally nothing.

    I have sympathy with the whole "I created this, I own the idea forever" mindset, but I genuinely don't believe all of Genghis Khan's descendants all own a tiny portion of his life story, I don't believe Greece should be able to prevent people from rewriting the Odyssey, etc. So at some point there must be a line. Debate has raged for a long time over exactly where that is.

    You lose everything. And it isn't the idea; it's the words, artwork, etc. It's the work itself. Twisting what I say into a logical fallacy does not substantiate your argument.

    I'm curious. What sale promoted this converstaion?

  • LlynaraLlynara Posts: 4,772
    edited December 2017

    It really is a matter of choice. As a creator, you can choose to release your work for free, under Creative Commons Licenses. Many do. Or you can choose to sell your work and the rights to it forever. I did that once and will never do it again. I don't like selling pieces of myself that I can never get back. I come from a family of writers. I watched my mother struggled in traditional publishing and wait a very long time to get her publishing rights back when her contract expired. The experience was awful, and kept me (and other family members) from publishing my own work for many years. I am now a published indie author, and wouldn't have it any other way. I might not make a ton, but I have full control over my work. 

    I'm not a PA, but it does seem like they have a couple of different options when selling their models to stores. They can sell out everything completely as a DAZ Original for a one time payout or have their own stores within DAZ or some other vendor, and they can also sell items on their own stores (which some do.) Options are good, one size does not fit all, but copyrights do provide a good umbrella over all those options.

    Oh, and for the most part, you can NOT copyright a general idea or a title. Only the specific work itself.

    Post edited by Llynara on
  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited December 2017
    firewarden said:
    agent unawares said:
    firewarden said:
    No one should have the right to tell anyone when they don't own something they created, whether it's art, digital models, a house, a statue... That's like telling a descendant of Van Gogh that after his death, the painting hanging in his daughter's house (and I'm making this totally up) has to be removed and placed in a museum. He's been dead 70 years (14 years, whatever), hand over the painting; it no belongs to the public.

    It's completely different. Losing copyright does not give anyone the right to your physical property, it just gives them the right to make a copy. You lose literally nothing.

    I have sympathy with the whole "I created this, I own the idea forever" mindset, but I genuinely don't believe all of Genghis Khan's descendants all own a tiny portion of his life story, I don't believe Greece should be able to prevent people from rewriting the Odyssey, etc. So at some point there must be a line. Debate has raged for a long time over exactly where that is.

    You lose everything.

    You keep your right to display the work, make copies of the work, sell the work, remix the work, so surely looks like you aren't losing quite everything. I think, in fact, you are still allowed to do every single thing with your work that you could before your hypothetical copyright lapsed. Just now other people can.

    firewarden said:

    And it isn't the idea; it's the words, artwork, etc. It's the work itself.

    So, ideas. These are ideas, just specific ideas. Not only the physical work gets copyrighted. If you paint something unique, generally someone is not allowed to sculpt it and sell copies without permission while your copyrights lasts, because they have taken your idea.

    firewarden said:

    Twisting what I say into a logical fallacy does not substantiate your argument.

    I'm sorry, did you not intend to say that allowing people to use an original idea is the same thing as taking a physical object from its owner?

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,942

    Sniffs around there must be a glitch somewhere ...

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    ArtAngel said:
    firewarden said:
    agent unawares said:
    firewarden said:
    No one should have the right to tell anyone when they don't own something they created, whether it's art, digital models, a house, a statue... That's like telling a descendant of Van Gogh that after his death, the painting hanging in his daughter's house (and I'm making this totally up) has to be removed and placed in a museum. He's been dead 70 years (14 years, whatever), hand over the painting; it no belongs to the public.

    It's completely different. Losing copyright does not give anyone the right to your physical property, it just gives them the right to make a copy. You lose literally nothing.

    I have sympathy with the whole "I created this, I own the idea forever" mindset, but I genuinely don't believe all of Genghis Khan's descendants all own a tiny portion of his life story, I don't believe Greece should be able to prevent people from rewriting the Odyssey, etc. So at some point there must be a line. Debate has raged for a long time over exactly where that is.

    You lose everything. And it isn't the idea; it's the words, artwork, etc. It's the work itself. Twisting what I say into a logical fallacy does not substantiate your argument.

    I'm curious. What sale promoted this converstaion?

    Something to do with store changes and glitches and true value and the declining worth of an asset to a creator over time? -headscratch-

  • quadchromaquadchroma Posts: 35

    Pushing aside all the other off-topic random stuff:

    One thing I do know - all this glitchy/inconsistent pricing makes me hesitant to buy things.  

    Is what I have in my cart the right price?  If I wait 30 minutes will it go down?  Will it go up?

    Limited time sales are fine - psychology of sales means the time pressure will cause more people to buy.  But anxiety about pricing with no idea of how they'll change at random times does not.

    OnTopic:  Now if the Rune 7 Pro Bundle would just go on a nice discount...

  • deathbycanondeathbycanon Posts: 1,227
    ItsCeo said:
    NSFW said:
    WandW said:
    thistledownsname said:

    Fu..... I've got 37 wishlist items coming in at >71% off, and maybe a budget for 4 or 5 of them...

    Wow, I must be late to the party, as the only items on my WL at 71% off are PC items...  sad

    Well there's still these.... But I assume these are correct prices as they've been this low all day, even after they fixed what I guess were other gltiches, who the F knows at this point. Ii'm done with this. The stuff I really wanted all went up in price.

     

     

     

     

    [Huh]? Why is Streets of Tuscany $7.22 for you and $15.03 for me?!! I am Plat Club, have 'new release' in cart, and 30% loyalty reward. What other discounts are there to be applied? I hate it when I feel I cannot trust the vendor.

    Edited for profanity

    I don't know if this was ever answered but there was a glitch that had some of Stonemason's stuff 70% to start with, hence the $7.22 price. It was fixed later then came back when at the midnight store change, then was probably fixed again....

  • zombietaggerungzombietaggerung Posts: 3,844
    edited December 2017

    I just bought the Desperado HD Expansion for $8!!! Is it a glitch??!!! Probably not! But it was a great deal, and it was on my wishlist, so I'm happy about it! 

    ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY GREAT DEALS?????

    Post edited by zombietaggerung on
  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,942
    agent unawares said:

    Something to do with store changes and glitches and true value and the declining worth of an asset to a creator over time? -headscratch-

    LOL. That's funny. But I take it you're serious. I value everything I buy and sometimes the lesser priced items make me scratch my head and think wow. But sometimes lesser priced items sell more and the Amazon thing happens. My problem is there are way too many taleneted artists and . . . sigh . . . maybe the blind are luckier than we think.

  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,942

    Does anyone know If the freebie for the Millenium Dog Sweater means there a new canine around the corner?

  • L'AdairL'Adair Posts: 9,479

    I see humor was insufficient to distract. Therefore, seriously, if anyone would like to continue the off-topic debate on copyrights, product value versus product price, and so on, please do the rest of us the courtesy of starting a thread for that topic.

    Thank you.

  • firewardenfirewarden Posts: 1,486
    edited December 2017

    Sorry, returning to topic. I'll only talk re: glitches. 

    That said, regarding glitches and artist content. I've actually gone back and rebought a PA's item at the correct price when I felt badly about how little I paid. I'm still debating what I'll do about the last glitch set I bought on a few days back. Whenever that was; life is a blur. I had originally tried for only DOs but veered from my purpose.  I'll probably buy extra from the PAs, going for things I'd otherwise waffle on. Missed the last couple of glitches, thank goodness for my wallet.

    Edited to add: And while I'm typing this more folks post. Sorry for getting involved in the debate. I'm pretty sure that was as advisable as a land-war in Asia per the Princess Bride.

    Post edited by firewarden on
  • dreamfarmerdreamfarmer Posts: 2,128
    Llynara said:

     

    Oh, and for the most part, you can NOT copyright a general idea or a title. Only the specific work itself.

    Thank you. I was skimming this thread and I kept wanting to point out that you can't copyright ideas, only implementations of ideas and derivative works based on same. You can trademark looks but you have to defend those. 

    Anyhow, not that anybody cares at this point, but 14 years is too short and life+70 years is too long. And my opinion on buying glitched stuff arises from this: once I made a big purchase that included a gift card. Right after I did so, _everything_ 'glitched' down to 25% lower than what I paid for a few hours. I asked customer support if they'd honor those glitched prices on the products. They not only honored the product prices, they applied the refund to the gift card, too.

  • MendomanMendoman Posts: 404

    Of course artists should hold copyright for their own work for a period of time, but not forever, since most of the time their work is based on something else that is public domain. Heck, even Tolkien "stole" ideas from public domain like Kalevala, so what is original work anymore is quite debatable.

  • Robert FreiseRobert Freise Posts: 4,573
    L'Adair said:

    I see humor was insufficient to distract. Therefore, seriously, if anyone would like to continue the off-topic debate on copyrights, product value versus product price, and so on, please do the rest of us the courtesy of starting a thread for that topic.

    Thank you.

    Here hereyes

  • donovancolbertdonovancolbert Posts: 1,421

    Man... I go to art class for the evening and come back and look at the chaos I've caused... 

    Whoops! :D 

     

  • firewardenfirewarden Posts: 1,486
    donovancolbert said:

    Man... I go to art class for the evening and come back and look at the chaos I've caused... 

    Whoops! :D 

     

    Trigger a glitch and we'll all forget about everything else except shopping cart jenga. ;)

  • dreamfarmerdreamfarmer Posts: 2,128

    About 2.5 hours to go!

  • donovancolbertdonovancolbert Posts: 1,421

    I think my whole real original point really boiled down to, "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." 

    Sometimes the PAs lose, sometimes they win. Sometimes the customers lose, sometimes they win... I'm pretty sure the House never loses. But they made the toy that the customers play with and that the PAs create content for - so it is in all of our interest that the house doesn't lose. I was there for the big glitch a week ago, but missed the one a day or two ago. Those are the breaks... 

  • donovancolbertdonovancolbert Posts: 1,421

    Oops. Missed all the "quitcher off topic" posts too... 

    So... man... those glitches! Wow, huh?!? 

  • Liana_1796711Liana_1796711 Posts: 1,035
    edited December 2017
    L'Adair said:

    I thought I'd weigh in on the whole value vs price stu...

    Oh look! A squirrel!

    wink

    Oh darn! I missed the squirrel! I was side tracked. :)

    Post edited by Liana_1796711 on
This discussion has been closed.