|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 3, 2011 3:28:12 GMT -8
Unlike our hypothetical Fred Malory, who ALSO did not create or produce anything, and only uses what others already produced to earn himself money, but happens to have a minuscule amount of genetic material from Sir Thomas Malory.
And, of course, he's not alone. If we assume a generation of 20 years, and at least two children per descendant per generation, and a period of 560 years for ease of mathematics, that gives us approximately 228 descendants, or 268 MILLION people who would all profit, having .000003% Malory genes each.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jun 3, 2011 3:36:51 GMT -8
If you don't think you can make a fair judgement of Le Morte, let's take something else. With your form of absolutist copyright we'd have no Tolkien because there would be no Wagner or Eddas for him to be inspired by and base his work on. We'd have no Shakespeare - at least no Romeo and Juliet, no Hamlet, no King Lear, no history plays. We'd have no science to speak of. When you'd need to coordinate the rights of Euclid's and Pythagora's several millions of descendants their works would never be reprinted so we'd have no Newton, no Gauss, no Einstein, nothing. And more importantly, we'd have no new works either. Who would risk writing a new book when someone could show up with a 500 year old story that's similar enough that you'd lose everything you made and probably more, due to copyright infringement? There would be no way for you to even know which books existed. Or rather, Paris Hilton won't bother reprinting it. In order to make money, the heirs will have to take action. They won't get money for nothing. Yeah, that's not helping your case. Once you get past maybe a dozen people, even if you managed to get everyone to agree (and I think we all know enough about how families work to know how well that would work), nobody would make enough money for it to be profitable. Like we've said, nothing would be reprinted. Also, once you get past a couple of dozen relatives it will be a full-time business just keeping track of all the rights-holders to a single creator's work. A few more generations and it will cost more to track the rights-holders than you'll gain from reprinting the books. Why should someone who created an IP be treated differently from someone who builds a hotel chain? Because ideas are different than things. But really, because I want the world to go somewhere. Perpetual copyright would massively stifle all creativity because it would massively limit the access to ideas. As to whether Americans would consider my system Communism, copyright in the US is already limited. The time limit just keeps being extended. |
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 3, 2011 3:47:15 GMT -8
As to whether Americans would consider my system Communism, copyright in the US is already limited. The time limit just keeps being extended. No worries: The Congress shall have Power…
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. |
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 3, 2011 6:05:51 GMT -8
Speaking of offspring & copyrights...
Brian Herbert. Owns the copyrights to Dune, and not only milked the franchise for all it's worth, but has depicted, in universe, that the original books are a fictional account of what REALLY happened (which, of course, can be found in the books he did with KJA).
|
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 3, 2011 7:10:48 GMT -8
Why should someone who created an IP be treated differently from someone who builds a hotel chain? Because ideas are different than things. And that's the crux of our disagreement. For me, ideas are things of no more or less value than any other thing. And so long as the Hiltons (to stick with this example) get to keep their business empire until the xth generation, so long will I argue that the same should go for IP. Because otherwise, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in creating IP, when you can start a construction business (or something else tangible) instead. Because in the latter case, at least your children and grandchildren will be allowed to keep it. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 3, 2011 7:15:35 GMT -8
Speaking of offspring & copyrights... Brian Herbert. Owns the copyrights to Dune, and not only milked the franchise for all it's worth, but has depicted, in universe, that the original books are a fictional account of what REALLY happened (which, of course, can be found in the books he did with KJA). Why shouldn't he milk the franchise for all it's worth? At least he's making use of it. Would you rather the same thing gets done by some PD wankfesting fanficcer? |
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 3, 2011 7:38:08 GMT -8
Why shouldn't he milk the franchise for all it's worth? At least he's making use of it. Would you rather the same thing gets done by some PD wankfesting fanficcer? Yes. Because you can easily disregard anything you don't like (for example, nearly every Sherlock Holmes pastiche I've read) if it's public domain. But when it's the owner of (someone else's) work that make "official" changes, it's different. |
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 3, 2011 7:52:35 GMT -8
Why should someone who created an IP be treated differently from someone who builds a hotel chain? Because ideas are different than things. And that's the crux of our disagreement. For me, ideas are things of no more or less value than any other thing. And so long as the Hiltons (to stick with this example) get to keep their business empire until the xth generation, so long will I argue that the same should go for IP. Because otherwise, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in creating IP, when you can start a construction business (or something else tangible) instead. Because in the latter case, at least your children and grandchildren will be allowed to keep it. The Hilton analogy is flawed, anyway. There's been some confusion on this thread between the patents and copyrights, and the rules are not the same. If I get an idea for a new kind of hotel, the law says I can profit from it exclusively for 20 years. Not lifetime plus 20 years... just 20 years. After that, anyone can build one. Copyright is a different beast entirely. It's about content, not form. Message, not medium. Indeed, the whole point of copyright is that it transcends the actual form of the work... a story is copyrighted in all possible forms, from carved in stone to telepathic meme-pulse (pat. pending). If a writer publishes a work, that means he wants it seen. But by keeping it under perpetual copyright, that means people who weren't even ALIVE when it was created have control over where and how it can be seen. Disney does it all the time, with their "Vault", and it means that the hard work all those artists put in will only be seen when some guy in a suit says so. And I just can't see that as the right thing. If I ever get published, I'm going to want it seen by as many people as possible. And, when I'm gone, I don't want some schmuck who just happens to be related to me to have the right to say "Well, I'm rich enough, so let's withdraw it from publication for a few years". |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jun 3, 2011 7:56:47 GMT -8
Why should someone who created an IP be treated differently from someone who builds a hotel chain? Because ideas are different than things. And that's the crux of our disagreement. For me, ideas are things of no more or less value than any other thing. I'd like to point out that I have in no way claimed that ideas is of lesser value than physical objects. In fact, I hold the opposite position which is why I don't think anyone should be able to hold ideas ransom indefinitely. And so long as the Hiltons (to stick with this example) get to keep their business empire until the xth generation, so long will I argue that the same should go for IP. Because otherwise, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in creating IP, when you can start a construction business (or something else tangible) instead. Because in the latter case, at least your children and grandchildren will be allowed to keep it. Yeah, because nobody did anything creative before there was copyright in place.  Your children and grandchildren will get to keep the proceeds of your creative endeavors. They just don't get to decide who can do something with the ideas you've created, because if we allow that we make the whole world a worse place to live. If you consider that fucking over the descendants of creators then fine, I'm all for fucking them. Fuck them with fucking chainsaws for all I care, because I want to live in a rich world much more than I want to live in a fair world. Your way would lead to spiritual poverty and the death of innovation, creativity and history. If preventing that means fucking over some people who have done nothing of value themselves I have no problems whatsoever with that idea. (And please note that I personally don't consider this fucking them over. And yes, I'd rather the Hiltons weren't able to live off of their accumulated wealth generation after generation either, but that hurts the world much, much less than restricting the use of ideas.) |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 3, 2011 8:15:52 GMT -8
Why shouldn't he milk the franchise for all it's worth? At least he's making use of it. Would you rather the same thing gets done by some PD wankfesting fanficcer? Yes. Because you can easily disregard anything you don't like (for example, nearly every Sherlock Holmes pastiche I've read) if it's public domain. But when it's the owner of (someone else's) work that make "official" changes, it's different. No, it's not. Sticking with the Dune example, I hated what Frank Herbert did after the original novel, so after a while I sold everything from vol. 2 on to the used book store and pretended it never happened. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jun 3, 2011 8:18:46 GMT -8
Crap, it's clear I'm at fault for a lot of the ongoing problems and confusion in this discussion. Let's see if I can fix any of it (doubtful, because that's how internet arguements are).
1) Mario is correct on the patent/copyright distinction and I should have mentioned that myself. I was simply trying to illustrate that there is such a thing as the public good, and while there are differences between material, technical innovations (patents) and artistic concepts (copyright). However, in both cases, it is important to point out that there is such a thing as the public good that over time, means your idea, whatever it is, belongs to the rest of humankind.
2) I used Mallory as an illustrative example, and this seems to be one of the real sticking points that is not being clearly defined - exactly how many generations out is your "inheritance" both meaningless in terms of copyright fees split among so many descendants so minute as to be not worth the effort that you can just say "this belongs to all of humanity? Jens, your idea on a generational renewal sounds good in theory, but what counts as a "Generation" is wide open to interpretation, nevermind the logistical issues of setting up an "estate". Going back to your house metaphor - at some point there simply isn't enough land for all the descendants to occupy and survive - so they have to go do their own thing anyway. To me, I'd say it's about 100 years, but even that I realize is subject to how human lifespans are changing.
3) Paris Hilton was also an illustrative example, but also probably a poor one. I apologize for that. What I was trying to illustrate is that past a few generations - a stranger who studied my history and works possibly has greater claim to my spiritual legacy than someone I possibly share a few genes with who has no real knowledge and less appreciation for the same. I've been reminded by a friend of mine that family is often times not defined by blood but by other, more difficult to define bonds.
4) And I think this is where the discussion gets tricky - yes, there is a point where an idea should become part of the public trust, where one family, or corporation, simply do not have the moral right to be the sole custodian of a creation. We can debate where that line is drawn, but not whether or not it ultimately exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 3, 2011 8:23:20 GMT -8
If a writer publishes a work, that means he wants it seen. But by keeping it under perpetual copyright, that means people who weren't even ALIVE when it was created have control over where and how it can be seen. Disney does it all the time, with their "Vault", and it means that the hard work all those artists put in will only be seen when some guy in a suit says so. And I just can't see that as the right thing. If I ever get published, I'm going to want it seen by as many people as possible. And, when I'm gone, I don't want some schmuck who just happens to be related to me to have the right to say "Well, I'm rich enough, so let's withdraw it from publication for a few years". While I find the idea of someone who has literally nothing at all to do with me, some scavenging profiteer, controlling and profiting from my work with no effort at all on their side so abhorrent that, as I said in the initial post, I've decided I'd rather have every trace of everything I have created excised from existence than let that happen. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 3, 2011 8:36:20 GMT -8
I'd like to point out that I have in no way claimed that ideas is of lesser value than physical objects. In fact, I hold the opposite position which is why I don't think anyone should be able to hold ideas ransom indefinitely. Some get to keep what their ancestors built, some don't. Until that's balanced, screw them. Ah, but by all intents and purposes, only as long as I am alive. They get to keep the money that I earned with my creation, but they don't get to (as Mario called Brian Herbert's work) milk it until it's dry. While Hilton gets to play with and expand the Hilton business empire. That amounts to me not getting to decide who can do something with the ideas that I've created. Because if I decide that I don't want anyone outside the family to play with them, well, I don't seem to have that right. [quoe]If you consider that fucking over the descendants of creators then fine, I'm all for fucking them.[/quote] I see it as fucking the creators over. Let me use the example of the organ donation debate here in Germany. Now, organ donation can save lives. So far, it's an opt-in thing: you have to declare that you're willing to donate your organs. Fair enough. The government wants to change it into opt-out: you're going to have to declare that you do not want to donate your organs to prevent them being used. Right now, the situation with copyright and trademark is neither. It's like saying, when you're dead, we'll harvest all your organs. You don't get a say about it because, hey, it saves lives, and your opinion of what you want done with your body doesn't matter once you're dead. That's why I said I would happily accept a reform along the following lines: instead of mandatory, turn it into opt-in or opt-out. Make the heirs actively have to renew the rights if they want to keep them, or else they go PD. Let the creator decide, before his death, if he wants to let his creations go PD or not. The one thing, the only thing that should be mandatory should be respecting the creator's wishes. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jun 3, 2011 8:38:02 GMT -8
I don't think it's so much confusion as strong opinions, honestly. Me and Jens obviously have very different opinions on this and we have both used the examples brought up in ways that may not have been intended to try to illustrate our points, but I don't think we misunderstood you.
I also think I've made my point as clear as I can, so unless someone has any direct questions I'll try to stay out of it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 3, 2011 8:46:59 GMT -8
I've been reminded by a friend of mine that family is often times not defined by blood but by other, more difficult to define bonds. "Friends are the family you choose." Agreed. When I've developed the idea of arranging to destroy my body of work after my death, I've started to think about who I could trust with that. Or maybe I should just will everything to Disney, as my way of giving the finger to future generations. Never forget that I'm a misanthrope at heart. And I think this is where the discussion gets tricky - yes, there is a point where an idea should become part of the public trust, where one family, or corporation, simply do not have the moral right to be the sole custodian of a creation. We can debate where that line is drawn, but not whether or not it ultimately exists. We could agree that the line should be drawn according to the respective creators's wishes. That should be the only measure that counts. About "the public trust" -- I don't trust the public.  The thing is, looking at my argumentation, there is one thread running through: that I am opposed to someone else profiting from a creator's work. If things could be arranged that anything in the PD has to be distributed for free, so that nobody profits financially, I could live with that. Once an IP enters the Public Domain, nobody at all gets to make any money at all with it anymore. They can distribute it, develop it further, but all of that has to be done completely for free. Example: that way, I could write that Mike Hammer vs. James Bond story I mentioned upthread, but I wouldn't make any money with it. What? Do you think that if people can't make money with it, nobody will spread the IP anymore? (Actually, yes, I think so.) |
|
