|
|
Post by jkcarrier on Jun 3, 2011 9:59:22 GMT -8
What? Do you think that if people can't make money with it, nobody will spread the IP anymore? (Actually, yes, I think so.) Happens all the time. It's called fanfic.  |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jun 3, 2011 13:52:49 GMT -8
What? Do you think that if people can't make money with it, nobody will spread the IP anymore? (Actually, yes, I think so.) Which is weird, since you just said that nobody would bother creating anything if they and their children and their grandchildren couldn't make money off of it. (Yes, I know, I said I was done. I just hate inconsistency.) |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jun 3, 2011 15:25:50 GMT -8
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). Oh, good ... I'd actually felt guilty about not keeping up with the Brian Herbert prequel novels, so it's good to know that I was actually retroactively justified. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jun 3, 2011 15:31:01 GMT -8
After reading through all these posts, I realized this was much more political than personal. Hence, the move.  |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 3, 2011 23:20:28 GMT -8
What? Do you think that if people can't make money with it, nobody will spread the IP anymore? (Actually, yes, I think so.) Which is weird, since you just said that nobody would bother creating anything if they and their children and their grandchildren couldn't make money off of it. (Yes, I know, I said I was done. I just hate inconsistency.) Not inconsistent, misunderstanding: Yes, I think that they won't spread it if they won't make money with it. But I realized that I was wrong, because it happens all the time: internet piracy. BTW, you seem to have a different understanding of what copyright entails than what I do. For one thing, you say that we wouldn't have history. Wrong. Because real events can not be copyrighted. Everyone and anyone can write about real events. They just can't copy each other and have to express it their own ways. You also say that nobody would create anything new if they couldn't draw from the pool of PD. Again, wrong. You forget that you can't copyright ideas. You can only copyright the expression of the ideas. That's one of the reasons why, say, Dashiell Hammett never sued anyone for creating a two-fisted, gun-toting hardboiled PI. That's why The Asylum can make a Transmorphers movie. Let me turn it around and ask you: what would really, specifically be gained if Steamboat Willy and Action Comics #1 entered PD? What would really be gained if, say, I could write Mike Hammer novels, instead of having to create my own hardboiled PI to tell the same type of stories? |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jun 4, 2011 8:05:47 GMT -8
Because real events can not be copyrighted. Everyone and anyone can write about real events. They just can't copy each other and have to express it their own ways. If you strictly limit your meaning of history to describing real events, sure. If you want to include the history of ideas, philosophy, literature, art - you know, all the things that make history meaningful instead of a list of dry facts - then not so much. What's the point in knowing that someone named Shakespeare wrote some plays if you have no access to those plays? (And again, this is assuming Shakespeare would have written anything, which, under your system, seems highly unlikely.) You also say that nobody would create anything new if they couldn't draw from the pool of PD.
Again, wrong. Was I being hyperbolic? Yes. But far less so than you when you claimed that nobody would create anything unless they got paid for it and that limited copyright makes creating things meaningless. All of history contradicts you on that. Let me turn it around and ask you: what would really, specifically be gained if Steamboat Willy and Action Comics #1 entered PD? What would really be gained if, say, I could write Mike Hammer novels, instead of having to create my own hardboiled PI to tell the same type of stories? Not much, because those are pretty stupid examples. I wouldn't mind seeing some Superman stories that weren't approved by DC because he's an iconic character that can be used in interesting ways, but Mickey Mouse? Mike Hammer? Who cares? Let's take some good ones instead: What would be lost if nobody could use the character Jesus in their writings? Hamlet? King Arthur? Oddysseus? What could possibly be gained? |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 4, 2011 23:15:20 GMT -8
If you strictly limit your meaning of history to describing real events, sure. If you want to include the history of ideas, philosophy, literature, art - you know, all the things that make history meaningful instead of a list of dry facts - then not so much. Philisophy, Very funny, because philosophy as the "science" of ideas means the ideas would still be developed, and still be spread by the students of those philosophers. They'd simply express them differently. Not much, because those are pretty stupid examples. For you perhaps, but Steamboat Willy and Superman are the two examples given every time in this debate, by those who say that copyright is EEEVIL. So... Mickey Mouse? Mike Hammer? Who cares? Apparently, everyone but you. (Granted, I might be the only one who cares about Mike Hammer, but still. By the way, this dismissive "Who cares, because I don't care" approach to everything (favored by my still-wife) is one of the things that led to my intended divorce. It's one of the buttons that shouldn't be pushed if you want to keep a debate civil. As I kept answering to my wife while I still cared, "Just because you don't care doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't." Let's take some good ones instead: What would be lost if nobody could use the character Jesus in their writings? Hamlet? King Arthur? Oddysseus? What could possibly be gained? One thing that would be lost would be the collective groan that comes up every time someone wants to make a story about an iconic character and adds the word "reimagining." One thing that would be lost would be the use of these characters as crutches, slapping the brand name on a mediocere or poor story, knowing that the name alone will sell more copies/tickets. What would be gained would be that people who want to write about Jesus or Arthur would not be able to just go and tick off the story beat checklist: "Born in a hut, check. Three kings, check. Carpenter, check. Water to wine, check. Mountain-sermon, check..." What would be gained would be that creators who want to write about these would, instead, have to actually put some thought into it: what are these stories actually about, and how can I tell it in a new and interesting way. People who want to write about Jesus might have to think about what he actually said, and present their interpretation of that, rather than just making a Jesus snuff movie or something. Sticking with Arthur as the example, would The Once And Future King be any worse if the story were about the Good King Roland, raised by a wise man, trying to change the world for the better and failing because of the weakness of his peers? Would the musical Camelot be any worse if the story were about the businessman Harry Richards whose wife falls in love with his best friend, giving his nephew an opening to get rid of the wife and thereby gaining the chance to gain control of Richards's business empire? I believe that both the novel and the musical are good enough that they could stand on their own merits even if you removed the Arthurian legend from it. Meanwhile, what we would lose are a lot of third and fourth rate claim jumpers who basically write Arthurean fanfic that gets professionally published because Arthurean fiction happens to have become a genre unto itself and the fanboys need their fix. Yeah, those fanficcers would probably still write those stories, but those who are serious about it would have to think about the actual characters and ideas behind the original, rather than "OMG I'M so edgy because I write Arthur as gay and in love with Lance, and Gwen is now an amazon warrior with tats." In other words, yes, I do believe we would lose a lot of low-quality hackwork, and gain interesting new interpretations of classic ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jun 5, 2011 1:33:41 GMT -8
In other words, yes, I do believe we would lose a lot of low-quality hackwork, and g ain interesting new interpretations of classic ideas. (Emphasis added.) Really? You seriously believe that those who write hackwork now would stop because they couldn't use the actual characters? You seriously believe they would sit down and think about the original characters and create something you would consider quality work instead, rather than just the type of hackwork that they were doing all along? Furthermore, I completely fail to see how the existence of hackwork, originally created or not, is bad. Sure, I'd prefer everything written to be good, but I don't think removing the bad is the best way to do that. Plenty of good works have been inspired by bad works, and one generation's or person's hackwork is another's treasure. As to philosophy, since your system would make it completely impossible to reproduce the original works all we'd have would be commentaries on the commentaries on the commentaries on the commentaries, meaning the original would be lost, just as I said. This is even more true with philosophical, political and religious texts, since the rights-holders would be even less likely to agree on if and if so, in what version, the original should be republished. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 5, 2011 2:52:58 GMT -8
Really? You seriously believe that those who write hackwork now would stop because they couldn't use the actual characters? You seriously believe they would sit down and think about the original characters and create something you would consider quality work instead, rather than just the type of hackwork that they were doing all along? Please remain in context, as I believe you were completely aware that I was talking in the context of professionally published work. This is even more true with philosophical, political and religious texts, since the rights-holders would be even less likely to agree on if and if so, in what version, the original should be republished. You mean, like what is already happening anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jun 5, 2011 8:19:58 GMT -8
Really? You seriously believe that those who write hackwork now would stop because they couldn't use the actual characters? You seriously believe they would sit down and think about the original characters and create something you would consider quality work instead, rather than just the type of hackwork that they were doing all along? Please remain in context, as I believe you were completely aware that I was talking in the context of professionally published work. What makes you think I was talking about anything else? This is even more true with philosophical, political and religious texts, since the rights-holders would be even less likely to agree on if and if so, in what version, the original should be republished. You mean, like what is already happening anyway. Except that today such works can still be republished. With your indefinite, distributed rights that would be impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 6, 2011 1:25:58 GMT -8
Except that today such works can still be republished. With your indefinite, distributed rights that would be impossible. Because we know that everybody scrupulpously follows the law and there is no such thing as internet piracy. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 6, 2011 1:28:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jun 6, 2011 3:17:51 GMT -8
Except that today such works can still be republished. With your indefinite, distributed rights that would be impossible. Because we know that everybody scrupulpously follows the law and there is no such thing as internet piracy. So your solution to setting up bad laws is to also encourage lawbreaking? If you have a system that makes it impossible to legally reproduce a work then a reasonable solution is to reproduce the work illegally? How would that be any different from just reprinting the work without having the rights? That you can get away with it? |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jun 6, 2011 3:31:08 GMT -8
Uhm, yeah. Tetris: No (or at least no enforcable) copyright laws at all. Not what anyone here's been arguing. Night of the Living Dead: No copyright notice on the film. The Amen Break: Knowingly didn't enforce the copyright. The Kalashnikov: See Tetris. Karaoke: Didn't file a patent. Smiley face: Didn't copyright or trademark. Yes, Romero got screwed because his distributor was sloppy and the Russians got screwed by their government. The other three didn't even try. None of these are arguments for or against either of our positions. As a sidenote, in the blog post linked to from the bit on the Amen Break, there's this quote: Over-protecting intellectual property is as harmful as under-protecting it. Culture is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, like nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new. Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Over-protection stifles the very creative forces it’s supposed to nurture. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 6, 2011 4:05:39 GMT -8
Because we know that everybody scrupulpously follows the law and there is no such thing as internet piracy. So your solution to setting up bad laws is to also encourage lawbreaking? No. It just renders your argument that the works won't be reproduced moot. It will be, whether the creator likes it or not, even within his lifetime. (Sidenote: When Norman Spinrad decided to republish his OOP works as ebooks, he didn't bother to type it out all over again. He simply downloaded pirated versions of his work, in order to get a digital version to work with. This is apropos of nothing, just a funny anecdote.) My solution would be: a) Globally unify the copyright/tradmark laws. b) Give the creator a choice, that he has to make while still alive, whether or not to put his work into PD upon his death. If he chooses not to: c) Hold the heirs responsible for actively retaining the rights. Only those who actively renew the rights get to share in them. If they can't be bothered, it defaults into PD. d) PD is non-profit only. Everything in the PD is to be distributed at no charge at all to anyone. Nobody gets to make any money with it at all. Ever. Or Take away EVERYONE'S inheritances. If your grandfather built a business, you get to keep the money he made with it (if any's left), but your grandfather's company is now government owned. In other words, treat everyone the same, without screwing over creators of IP for not building anything physical. Those would be my solutions. That also covers cases like Miguel de Cervantes, who didn't leave any descendants beyond a daughter who died without any surviving offspring. After all, my problems with PD are the unequal treatment of IP creators compared to companies, and also the fact that strangers can without any effort make money off your work. Equalize that, and my problems with PD will go away. I might even change my mind about having all my IP destroyed upon my death. |
|
