an open letter to SquareEnix

[forbiddenmessage]

I know this message will be taken down due to its inflammatory content, but I would like to take the opportunity to remind everyone that laws do not grant anyone the subjective right for net destruction. Anyway:

Dear SquareEnix:

Laws are logically meaningless unless used to control others. The only reason laws exist is so that those not intelligent enough to create their own logical framework for the consequences of their interactions with the world in which they live can be kept under control. For those with logic, an inescapable comprehension of these interactions and their consequences is the primary form of control.

You own a copyright, and you think that you can use this copyright to make money. However, anyone with a computer can create an endless number of copies of your copywritten material. This makes the objective value of your copywritten material equal to zero, since no one will pay for it when they can copy and paste it on a computer.

Okay, that's not completely true. There are plenty of illogical people out there who will follow the law not because it has any logical meaning, but because they are incapable of comprehending what it means for something to be logical. I suppose these people are why you are in business, and why you can threaten to sue anyone for hundreds of thousands of dollars if they dare to make a creative work containing data that you claim to own.

I am certainly glad that fucks like you don't own a copyright over the sound of a human's heartbeat, an image of the sun, or the feeling of a gust of fresh air. If you did, I would still defy you. Its the logical thing to do.

Yours truly,
Anonymous

[xcalibur]

not just that, but parody/derivative works are considered fair use under copyright law.

"The goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright." -Judge Pierre Leval

but, you should expect all this to fall on deaf ears.

[Lennis]

Letters like this really aren't helpful.  It makes Square-Enix that much more disinclined to listen to fans, even when they have something constructive to say.  This rant failed to even state what its goal was.

[forbiddenmessage]

My main point is likely that SquareEnix thinks it can leverage copyright law over people and use it to make money, when all it takes for that tactic to fail utterly is computer literacy. When a fan website develops and releases a game it is because a lot people cared so much about their artwork that they decided to release it for free. When a corporation like SquareEnix releases a game it is because they expect to capitalize on their copyright, which only makes sense when you don't think about it.

Trying to capitalize material that only has subjective value is illogical, even if there are people who will pay for it while condemning those who do not.

[xcalibur]

there is a place for intellectual property, though. there should be a way to prevent others from capitalizing on your work (eg Tanya Grotter)

on the other hand, if you're not trying to capitalize on other's intellectual property, and/or your work qualifies as parody/derivative, then there's no justification for wielding copyright.

[forbiddenmessage]

Well, wouldn't Tanya Grotter be considered a fan-fiction? It even diverges into a completely different plot after the 1st book, where Voldemort wins because Harry Potter dies and the world becomes similar to Orwell's 1984, according to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter#Content

So to clarify, I see no good reason why material with no objective value, such as creative works computer data, should not be shared for free. If people like the art they can donate to support the artists. If they don't, at least there's no laws preventing a passionate artist, such as the folks at Kajar Laboratories, from creating.

[xcalibur]

Well, wouldn't Tanya Grotter be considered a fan-fiction? It even diverges into a completely different plot after the 1st book, where Voldemort wins because Harry Potter dies and the world becomes similar to Orwell's 1984, according to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter#Content

So to clarify, I see no good reason why material with no objective value, such as creative works computer data, should not be shared for free. If people like the art they can donate to support the artists. If they don't, at least there's no laws preventing a passionate artist, such as the folks at Kajar Laboratories, from creating.

I don't want to get into a long debate over that specific example, but I believe the courts found that tanya grotter went beyond derivation and into plagiarism.

intellectual property is a legal gray area in many ways. however, it usually takes time/effort/money to create art. to create software and games for us to play, it often takes alot of organization and investment. if they can't profit from their work, then there won't be an industry creating cool stuff.

on the other hand, just because you created something, doesn't mean others can't derive from it, or create works that are influenced by it. sending a cease&desist against crimson echoes was baseless, because crimson echoes is a derived/inspired work, and wasn't even for profit.

but then there's the issue of emulation. you could argue that it undercuts the video game industry. however, it preserves games, makes them accessible, and allows them to be experienced in new ways. alot of emulated games are from older systems/companies that might not be in business. it's also done as a hobby and not for-profit.

so as I said, intellectual property is very much a legal gray area. however, it's safe to say that the artist has a right to control sale/distribution of their work, but not derivative works inspired by it (as long as they qualify as parody and not plagiarism).

there are entire books written about this issue.

[ayabrea26]

totally agree, the author failed to guide the letter, he not even said pedia, such communications without conscience are not good for the image of fans//totalmente de acuerdo, el autor no supo orientar la carta, nisiquiera dijo que pedia, este tipo de comunicaciones sin conciencia no son buenas para la imagen de fans

[BootlessM22]

Sadly, Squeenix prolly didn't even bother replying. It's a shame, but business is business to them and they're still making money. That's what it all comes down to, as you can see.
If there's a way to profit off it, you do it. That's most likely what went through the president of the company's head. Not much different from how konami gives no fucks if there's money involved.