Originally posted by: Will Tasker
Which would be a perfectly legitimate peice of reasoning, if you weren't on a site that breaks several copyright laws and intellectual properties standards by editing that which no one here owns.
Yes, you're not suppose to make a profit because thats bad - but editing copyrighted material without written permission by the owner is just as illegal, if harder to prosecute since it doesn't involve "obvious" crime like bootlegging.
In the end though, your reasoning is pretty darn flawed. Complaining about someone breaking the law while you're in a den of the same is awfully silly.
Originally posted by: dark_jediand I dont buy this "hard times" crap,everyone has hard times at one time or another,that does not mean it is a free pass to break rules and sell shit that isnt yours
Which would be a perfectly legitimate peice of reasoning, if you weren't on a site that breaks several copyright laws and intellectual properties standards by editing that which no one here owns.
Yes, you're not suppose to make a profit because thats bad - but editing copyrighted material without written permission by the owner is just as illegal, if harder to prosecute since it doesn't involve "obvious" crime like bootlegging.
In the end though, your reasoning is pretty darn flawed. Complaining about someone breaking the law while you're in a den of the same is awfully silly.
First off, editing and sharing, isn't "just as illegal" as selling. The former is generally civil. The latter is criminal.
As a practical matter, an editing/preservation site will be ignored or tolerated. A site that promotes, or even one that *knowingly* permits selling, will get shut down. You betcha. Try it sometime.
As for issues of morally-right, or legally-right, we can debate every point forever. The law is full of gray areas and contradictions, as well as some things that can't reallly be reconciled with the constitution. And, frankly, a lot of issues are given to the civil arena because the authorities and corporations don't want legal challenges.
So it comes down to practicality.
Fan-editing is tolerated, because it simply generates more sales (a larger percentage of people actually *voluntarilly* want to stay on the good side of the law and the follow the you-have-to-own-a-retail-version rule. They'll buy Batman and Robin (ewwww), or Boogeyman, in order to see a watchable version of a failed, or under-performing property). Or, for "cult" properties, because it mostly appeals to hard-core fans who already own 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 (or...) different retail versions (and might recruit a few more fans).
Preservation is tolerated, because it generates interest in re-releases and special-editions (no coincidence that some stuff has *finally* been released - weeks or months after a preservation or restoration).
Fan films are tolerated, for the sheer publicity, and fueling of fandom. (The laws that give companies trademarks on character names, or could technically forbid the photographing of miniatures and sets of a certain design are absolutely in contradiction of the stated purpose of copyright, in the constitution... so they call it trademark).
If the situation changes, we'll run for the woods.
But, for now, the companies love us - as long as we keep our noses clean.
Edit: Meant to say "editing and sharing" instead of "trading or filesharing", the latter isn't on-topic, and its redundant. Brain fart. The original is quoted a couple of posts down.