I'm not arguing from societal good, incidentally. I just believe that people should have exclusive control over their creative works, or the works they purchase the rights to, as a matter if fairness. It just seems manifestly unjust to me that someone should ever profit from my work without my permission.
If you're taking that as given, then there is no possibility of agreement between you and copyright as it stands in the US, and I believe in most of the world. If you're using it based on some chain of reasoning, I'd be very interested in what it is.
I think a lot of people focus on the role of copyright in preventing a starving artist from up and stealing disney's shit without considering that copyright is the only thing preventing disney from up and stealing some starving artist's shit.
Corporations are extremely good at filing off the numbers of people's property just enough to win a court battle. They also have strong legal teams that can make life brutal for any artist who tries to fight them.
Regular folks do not. That's why you see thousands of copyright enforcement actions for the most innocuous infringements - i.e. Disney suing smalltown daycare centers for having a Mickey Mouse mural. The regular guy winning these battles is so rare as to be a major news item.
So. if Justin Bieber stole your shit and you sued, it is far more likely that Bieberco would end up owning the rights to your song while you lose your house because you had to take out a second mortgage to pay legal costs than the reverse. It is one of those examples of how things working in real life trumping what the law is supposed to do.
You're describing a problem with the legal system, not with copyright. I'm all for preventing the issue you describe, but what you suggest as a solution has awful secondary consequences and doesn't fix the legal system that caused the problems in the first place.
I'm not arguing from societal good, incidentally. I just believe that people should have exclusive control over their creative works, or the works they purchase the rights to, as a matter if fairness. It just seems manifestly unjust to me that someone should ever profit from my work without my permission.
If you're taking that as given, then there is no possibility of agreement between you and copyright as it stands in the US, and I believe in most of the world. If you're using it based on some chain of reasoning, I'd be very interested in what it is.
The "chain of reasoning" has something to do with a primary assumption that can be approximated as, "Laissez Faire Capitalism, as understood by SKFM, is justice / fairness / goodness.", whereby reality can be understood and mirrored by means of economic exchanges between atomistic rationally self-interested consumers.
I think a lot of people focus on the role of copyright in preventing a starving artist from up and stealing disney's shit without considering that copyright is the only thing preventing disney from up and stealing some starving artist's shit.
Corporations are extremely good at filing off the numbers of people's property just enough to win a court battle. They also have strong legal teams that can make life brutal for any artist who tries to fight them.
Regular folks do not. That's why you see thousands of copyright enforcement actions for the most innocuous infringements - i.e. Disney suing smalltown daycare centers for having a Mickey Mouse mural. The regular guy winning these battles is so rare as to be a major news item.
So. if Justin Bieber stole your shit and you sued, it is far more likely that Bieberco would end up owning the rights to your song while you lose your house because you had to take out a second mortgage to pay legal costs than the reverse. It is one of those examples of how things working in real life trumping what the law is supposed to do.
More than one person has taken on large entities and one (the My Sweet Lord case for instance), but either way what you're saying here is that there is a problem with the legal system, not with copyright.
For works done for hire the duration is 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from creation if the work was never published (whichever is shorter so you can't wait 119 years then publish the work and claim copyright for the next century).
Corporations potentially live forever, and I think that as long as they are actively selling works under the copyright, it should stand forever. I like the suggestion from earlier that DC owns the name superman, the appearance of him, and all the works actually created with him forever, but it does not own the idea of a superpowered man who falls from the sky.
So you believe that the Disney Corporation should be liquidated and all their assets transferred to the Crown of Great Britain and the City of Athens? I humbly disagree.
There is no reason that we can't choose a date from which creations would be covered by perpetual copyright, just like we have with ordinary copyrights now.
I'm not arguing from societal good, incidentally. I just believe that people should have exclusive control over their creative works, or the works they purchase the rights to, as a matter if fairness. It just seems manifestly unjust to me that someone should ever profit from my work without my permission.
What grounds do you have for your apparent belief that absolutely none of your work is derivative in any conceivable way?
Even if in this hypothetical Bieber wins his case*, without copyright I'm not able to bring a case at all.
*Which he wouldn't. Sorry. Argue about corporate power all you want, but in this example where he simply took my song wholesale the case would be open and shut. Copyright in the internet age is easier to prove that it has ever been. Google "famous plagiarism cases" if you don't believe me.
What grounds do you have for your apparent belief that absolutely none of your work is derivative in any conceivable way?
Copyright doesn't prevent works from being derivative or Lady Gaga wouldn't exist. Everything is derivative. You can still make a story about an alien from a dying planet who comes to earth and does only good. Those comics exist in their many.
The Jonathan Coulton / Glee story seems relevant. Glee rips off a Jonathan Coulton cover. Jonathan Coulton says, "Hey, internet, get a load of this shit!" and the internet responds by giving Coulton money. I can't find an article that says how much money Coulton got from copies of the song, but the publicity and Coulton fans trashing the Glee cover through reviews seems to indicate that something vaguely advantageous happened to help Coulton and hurt the Glee machine.
Not as much money as Jonathon Coulton would have gotten if he'd copyrighted his arrangement* and sued Glee into the fucking ground. The Glee Machine has not been effected by this in any meaningful way, the only people who give a shit about this are people who weren't going to watch the show or buy Glee records anyway. The Coulton example is making the case for more protection of copyright, not less.
*this may not be possible in the US. I'm told Coulton was informed he had no legal recourse, presumably accurately.
Yeah, I'm very much in favour of strong copyright protections. Provided those protections are only existent for a reasonable, and reasonably short, duration so as to provide for an expanding public domain. This also requires strong protections for instances of simultaneous discovery.
(Simultaneous discovery, by the way, is why I hate the frame of 'property' when it comes to intellectual property. I can't imagine up a blender into existence. I can imagine an idea that somebody else has considered before me without ever having known of that person's existence. In fact, due to my bookishness I realize just how little originality most of my own perspectives have.)
There is no reason that we can't choose a date from which creations would be covered by perpetual copyright, just like we have with ordinary copyrights now. I'm not arguing from societal good, incidentally.
This would bring about a society which even George Orwell would have laughed at as an absurd proposition, beyond even talking pigs. Speculative fiction of the most dystopian kind. You are describing a society that would be begging and deserving to be torn down by a new Solon or a Hammurabi.
Actually I'd love to see a novel written with this premise. The world we know but with SKFM's Bright New Initiative put into action, we see what it looks like 2000 years from now.
"Fucking awful" would be my guess, as all human progress grinds to a halt and we enter a new Dark Age of Disney (or whichever Mega-Corp owns the rights to all human knowledge).
Yeah, I'm very much in favour of strong copyright protections. Provided those protections are only existent for a reasonable, and reasonably short, duration so as to provide for an expanding public domain. This also requires strong protections for instances of simultaneous discovery.
Life of the author is a good benchmark for private works. Corporations should either have a set limit or have to say "our employee Healthy Bob came up with this" and have it tied to him.
What grounds do you have for your apparent belief that absolutely none of your work is derivative in any conceivable way?
Copyright doesn't prevent works from being derivative or Lady Gaga wouldn't exist. Everything is derivative. You can still make a story about an alien from a dying planet who comes to earth and does only good. Those comics exist in their many.
Only so long as there is sufficient originality in the derivative work as to qualify as a fair use* of the original source material. Which would become nearly impossible over time when facing perpetual copyright as every new idea and interpretation crowds out the potential for future iterations of that interpretation until the heat death of the universe.
*Restricting things to commercial rather than various other forms of use that are protected by their non-commercial nature.
Yeah, I'm very much in favour of strong copyright protections. Provided those protections are only existent for a reasonable, and reasonably short, duration so as to provide for an expanding public domain. This also requires strong protections for instances of simultaneous discovery.
Life of the author is a good benchmark for private works. Corporations should either have a set limit or have to say "our employee Healthy Bob came up with this" and have it tied to him.
What would you say is the benefit of 'life of the author' over a set shorter period (10 years?) Doesn't a shorter period promote more innovation, since authors will have an incentive to continually create new characters and works rather than continually profit off of their first big idea?
There is no reason that we can't choose a date from which creations would be covered by perpetual copyright, just like we have with ordinary copyrights now. I'm not arguing from societal good, incidentally.
This would bring about a society which even George Orwell would have laughed at as an absurd proposition, beyond even talking pigs. Speculative fiction of the most dystopian kind. You are describing a society that would be begging and deserving to be torn down by a new Solon or a Hammurabi.
Actually I'd love to see a novel written with this premise. The world we know but with SKFM's Bright New Initiative put into action, we see what it looks like 2000 years from now.
"Fucking awful" would be my guess, as all human progress grinds to a halt and we enter a new Dark Age of Disney (or whichever Mega-Corp owns the rights to all human knowledge).
A certain well-known GNU activist beat you to it a while ago. (It's not very good but it gets the point across)
Yeah, I'm very much in favour of strong copyright protections. Provided those protections are only existent for a reasonable, and reasonably short, duration so as to provide for an expanding public domain. This also requires strong protections for instances of simultaneous discovery.
Life of the author is a good benchmark for private works. Corporations should either have a set limit or have to say "our employee Healthy Bob came up with this" and have it tied to him.
Like I said earlier, I'm not that big a fan of 'life of the author' start dates since it isn't always clear when somebody dies. Having a date certain which is basically equivalent to somewhere between average working life - life expectancy at date of publication rounded up/ that +10 years from date of creation (whichever is sooner) seems a lot more straightforward. So, say 40-50 years or 79-89 years. This also takes out the potential risk premium you put on an author's kids if they should meet with an early demise.
I'd personally prefer the former (actually I'd prefer shorter, so 25 years) since it enables people influenced by a work to be able to actually play around with that work during their working years but I'm not so strident on that as to say no in comparison to our current situation of a constantly extended date of copyright expiration so that basically nothing* has entered the public domain since 1923 and won't until 2019 assuming we don't change it again before then.
*Some orphan works from the 60's are potentially in the public domain provided you can prove they did not extend their copyright before the retroactive automatic extension for works in the 70's.
Yeah, I'm very much in favour of strong copyright protections. Provided those protections are only existent for a reasonable, and reasonably short, duration so as to provide for an expanding public domain. This also requires strong protections for instances of simultaneous discovery.
Life of the author is a good benchmark for private works. Corporations should either have a set limit or have to say "our employee Healthy Bob came up with this" and have it tied to him.
What would you say is the benefit of 'life of the author' over a set shorter period (10 years?) Doesn't a shorter period promote more innovation, since authors will have an incentive to continually create new characters and works rather than continually profit off of their first big idea?
It's probably as simple as nobody really wanting to see an artist go totally unrewarded in the event of eventual commercial exploitation of their work within their lifetime.
Yeah, I'm very much in favour of strong copyright protections. Provided those protections are only existent for a reasonable, and reasonably short, duration so as to provide for an expanding public domain. This also requires strong protections for instances of simultaneous discovery.
Life of the author is a good benchmark for private works. Corporations should either have a set limit or have to say "our employee Healthy Bob came up with this" and have it tied to him.
What would you say is the benefit of 'life of the author' over a set shorter period (10 years?) Doesn't a shorter period promote more innovation, since authors will have an incentive to continually create new characters and works rather than continually profit off of their first big idea?
It's probably as simple as nobody really wanting to see an artist go totally unrewarded in the event of eventual commercial exploitation of their work within their lifetime.
Is a work becoming commercialized more than a decade after creation a thing that happens? I mean, I know I mentioned a case a page or so back but it's not actually one I can find evidence of ever happening.
7 years from publication.
+7 years upon application for a nominal fee to cover administration and such, say $100.
+5 years upon repeated applications, with each 5 year extension requiring an exponentially higher registration fee (For example doubling each time, although perhaps other bases might work better. The ratio of the golden rectangle is deliciously irrational!)
If it's worth 2.048 billion dollars (or whatever) to Disney to keep the Mouse copyrighted for another 5 years, so be it. The public is reimbursed for the loss. If in further 5 years, Disney decides that the Mouse isn't worth another 4.096 billion, then into the domain he goes, derivative works ahoy!
For some reason, the proponents of "intellectual property" are never very keen on extending the concept to paying property taxes. For my part, I think the idea of treating a thought or a sound as "property" is as disgusting as treating person as property, and for much the same reason.
For my part, I think the idea of treating a thought or a sound as "property" is as disgusting as treating person as property, and for much the same reason.
Why "disgusting" and why "for much the same reason"?
I'd agree with you that treating thought or sound as "property" is problematic, but we seem to vastly differ on our reasons for why that is.
For my part, I think the idea of treating a thought or a sound as "property" is as disgusting as treating person as property, and for much the same reason.
Why "disgusting" and why "for much the same reason"?
I'd agree with you that treating thought or sound as "property" is problematic, but we seem to vastly differ on our reasons for why that is.
They're both an attempt to treat consciousness as property.
For my part, I think the idea of treating a thought or a sound as "property" is as disgusting as treating person as property, and for much the same reason.
Why "disgusting" and why "for much the same reason"?
I'd agree with you that treating thought or sound as "property" is problematic, but we seem to vastly differ on our reasons for why that is.
They're both an attempt to treat consciousness as property.
What would you say is the benefit of 'life of the author' over a set shorter period (10 years?) Doesn't a shorter period promote more innovation, since authors will have an incentive to continually create new characters and works rather than continually profit off of their first big idea?
Well firstly, that wouldn't happen, and secondly I think you're trying to solve a problem with shorter lifespans that doesn't exist.
Everyone uses Disney as an example so here it is. If Disney loses the copyright to Mickey Mouse after ten years, that doesn't mean they stop making Mickey Mouse. It means that they keep doing it but now so do Marvel or NBC or whoever else. Disney now call itself Home Of The Original Mickey Mouse. If the purpose of copyright is to force individual artists to innovate rather than profit off one work (which, by the way, it absolutely fucking isn't), this doesn't do that.
Secondly the very premise I outlined should demonstrate that this isn't a problem anyway. Do Disney do nothing but make Mickey Mouse cartoons? Do they fuck. They come up with a bunch of other shit because they make more profit that way.
The idea that there's some kind of moral failing in an artist doing one thing and then living off it is an absurd one. If an artist only has one good idea in their whole life and it's good enough for them to live off forever, more power to them. Harper Lee doesn't ever need to pick up a typewriter again, because To Kill A Mockingbird was the absolute tits. This is not a bug, this is Working As Intended.
Here's another hypothetical example: Bob Titfuck writes a brilliant novel about the human condition called A Tale Of Shitting Cocks. It isn't a mega hit, but because of lifetime copyright he makes enough off it to live comfortably for the rest of his life. Same example under a 10 year copyright expiration: Bob Titfuck writes a brilliant novel about the human condition called A Tale Of Shitting Cocks. He makes enough money to live off of it for ten years, at which point his copyright expires and Disney use their massive marketing clout to make a billion dollars off it without paying him a penny. He can't even keep selling the book, because any independent publishing attempt he makes is going to be completely crowded out. Is the good guy winning in this scenario? Is that what we want?
Here's another hypothetical example: Bob Titfuck writes a brilliant novel about the human condition called A Tale Of Shitting Cocks. It isn't a mega hit, but because of lifetime copyright he makes enough off it to live comfortably for the rest of his life. Same example under a 10 year copyright expiration: Bob Titfuck writes a brilliant novel about the human condition called A Tale Of Shitting Cocks. He makes enough money to live off of it for ten years, at which point his copyright expires and Disney use their massive marketing clout to make a billion dollars off it without paying him a penny. He can't even keep selling the book, because any independent publishing attempt he makes is going to be completely crowded out. Is the good guy winning in this scenario? Is that what we want?
I tend to define the good guy as public domain, so yes, the good guy is winning in that scenario. It going public domain means that someone writing some fanfiction of his works is allowed. I'm also not sold that Disney can crowd him out, simply because publishing your work is currently fairly low cost and the getting cheaper thanks to ereaders and the internet.
If, on the other hand, the reason he can't get any sales after his copyright runs out is because Disney can present his work better than he can ... then maybe he needs to come up with a way to do a better job.
I tend to define the good guy as public domain, so yes, the good guy is winning in that scenario. It going public domain means that someone writing some fanfiction of his works is allowed.
This is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Is anyone shutting down fanfiction? No, no one gives a shit unless you want to publish it and make money from it.
I'm also not sold that Disney can crowd him out, simply because publishing your work is currently fairly low cost and the getting cheaper thanks to ereaders and the internet.
Publishing it is cheap. Marketing it isn't. There is absolutely no way to compete with the corporate juggernaut that, under your system, no longer has to give even the slightest fuck about content creators.
If, on the other hand, the reason he can't get any sales after his copyright runs out is because Disney can present his work better than he can ... then maybe he needs to come up with a way to do a better job.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about whether this is a monstrous and absurd concept.
It seems to me that if Bob Titfuck is such a good author, then I would want him to continue writing novels. Is it so much to ask that he produces new work every ten years if he wants to continue making good money as an author? That seems like no less than what we demand from people working in non-artistic fields.
+2
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Here's another hypothetical example: Bob Titfuck writes a brilliant novel about the human condition called A Tale Of Shitting Cocks. It isn't a mega hit, but because of lifetime copyright he makes enough off it to live comfortably for the rest of his life. Same example under a 10 year copyright expiration: Bob Titfuck writes a brilliant novel about the human condition called A Tale Of Shitting Cocks. He makes enough money to live off of it for ten years, at which point his copyright expires and Disney use their massive marketing clout to make a billion dollars off it without paying him a penny. He can't even keep selling the book, because any independent publishing attempt he makes is going to be completely crowded out. Is the good guy winning in this scenario? Is that what we want?
I tend to define the good guy as public domain, so yes, the good guy is winning in that scenario. It going public domain means that someone writing some fanfiction of his works is allowed. I'm also not sold that Disney can crowd him out, simply because publishing your work is currently fairly low cost and the getting cheaper thanks to ereaders and the internet.
If, on the other hand, the reason he can't get any sales after his copyright runs out is because Disney can present his work better than he can ... then maybe he needs to come up with a way to do a better job.
If Disney can present his work better than he can, maybe they should pay him to do so. Companies pay other companies and individuals to use their works all the time. Somehow, that person continuing to be paid for what they created while they're still alive doesn't prevent other people from also using that concept and making money off of it, they just have to get permission and pay for it first. I don't see how that's all that bad.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
It seems to me that if Bob Titfuck is such a good author, then I would want him to continue writing novels. Is it so much to ask that he produces new work every ten years if he wants to continue making good money as an author? That seems like no less than what we demand from people working in non-artistic fields.
It turns out that's not how creativity works. You seriously want a world where Harper Lee had to write To Kill A Mockingbird 2 to pay the bills? Is the point of copyright to force artists to do what you want them to because you believe in some bizarre moral imperative for them to create?
It seems to me that if Bob Titfuck is such a good author, then I would want him to continue writing novels. Is it so much to ask that he produces new work every ten years if he wants to continue making good money as an author? That seems like no less than what we demand from people working in non-artistic fields.
It turns out that's not how creativity works. You seriously want a world where Harper Lee had to write To Kill A Mockingbird 2 to pay the bills? Is the point of copyright to force artists to do what you want them to because you believe in some bizarre moral imperative for them to create?
I would hope Harper Lee could come up with a more original idea for a book. But no, in general terms I don't have a problem with the idea that if you want to work as a creative then you have to produce something new every now and then.
I posted it more as a "down with orwellian, unilateral, heavy-handed and vaguely-legal system of abuse of the general public without giving them any meaningful recourse to defend themselves" than a target of any specific copyright demographic.
There's only so much you can directly discuss about the erection of a monolithic master system with regard to what you can functionally do about it past notifying people/politicians that this exists however, so the tracks appear to have taken the direction of copyright in general.
I tend to define the good guy as public domain, so yes, the good guy is winning in that scenario. It going public domain means that someone writing some fanfiction of his works is allowed.
This is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Is anyone shutting down fanfiction? No, no one gives a shit unless you want to publish it and make money from it.
The Gray Album is the musical equivalent of fan fiction and only avoided being killed due to public outcry. Star Wars mods for various video games are even closer to fan fiction (ie: not published) and LucasArts was notorious for going after them for a long time. I'm fairly certain that Games Workshop is also similarly zealous.
I'm also not sold that Disney can crowd him out, simply because publishing your work is currently fairly low cost and the getting cheaper thanks to ereaders and the internet.
Publishing it is cheap. Marketing it isn't. There is absolutely no way to compete with the corporate juggernaut that, under your system, no longer has to give even the slightest fuck about content creators.
If the difference between his success and failure was marketing, why did he not attempt to do some? Or is the theory that no one will be willing to work with him for a percent of the profits (and possibly an upfront payment that he takes out a loan on).
[If the difference between his success and failure was marketing, why did he not attempt to do some? Or is the theory that no one will be willing to work with him for a percent of the profits (and possibly an upfront payment that he takes out a loan on).
This is fucking asinine. You're suggesting an independent "does some marketing" that somehow lets him compete with Disney, who have multiple floors of multiple buildings dedicated to marketing? Oh yeah, ok, our hypothetical author will get right on that.
I tell you what then, he'll do the other thing you suggested. He'll go to a PR company and offer them a percentage of profits and an upfront payment to market his book. And they'll say "no thanks" and market the book themselves because he has absolutely no legal recourse without copyright. But no, sure, he'll somehow bootstrap a marketing department out of a bank loan. That they'll totally give him despite the fact that if they ask how he's going to compete in that market with no leverage he'll say "uuuuhhhhhh"
[If the difference between his success and failure was marketing, why did he not attempt to do some? Or is the theory that no one will be willing to work with him for a percent of the profits (and possibly an upfront payment that he takes out a loan on).
This is fucking asinine. You're suggesting an independent "does some marketing" that somehow lets him compete with Disney, who have multiple floors of multiple buildings dedicated to marketing? Oh yeah, ok, our hypothetical author will get right on that.
What changed in the 10 or 20 years where he had copyright that it becomes a successful work as soon as copyright drops? I'm not suggesting he compete with Disney. I'm suggesting that if the only difference between the two time spans was marketing that he screwed up and it's his fault.
This is a question I asked earlier on this page (6), and haven't seen anyone answer it yet, but seems to be directly related to the case you're talking about:
Is a work becoming commercialized more than a decade after creation a thing that happens?
edit: or were you attempting to suggest that the work produces a constant quantity of money over time and that Disney simply gets to make more (billions vs comfortable living) because they exist longer?
I tend to define the good guy as public domain, so yes, the good guy is winning in that scenario. It going public domain means that someone writing some fanfiction of his works is allowed.
This is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Is anyone shutting down fanfiction? No, no one gives a shit unless you want to publish it and make money from it.
The Gray Album is the musical equivalent of fan fiction and only avoided being killed due to public outcry. Star Wars mods for various video games are even closer to fan fiction (ie: not published) and LucasArts was notorious for going after them for a long time. I'm fairly certain that Games Workshop is also similarly zealous.
Part of that is trademark, not copyright. Trademarks have to be enforced to remain valid, so with some IP you end up with what would be a rather disproportionate response for copyright, but necessary under the law for trademark.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
[If the difference between his success and failure was marketing, why did he not attempt to do some? Or is the theory that no one will be willing to work with him for a percent of the profits (and possibly an upfront payment that he takes out a loan on).
This is fucking asinine. You're suggesting an independent "does some marketing" that somehow lets him compete with Disney, who have multiple floors of multiple buildings dedicated to marketing? Oh yeah, ok, our hypothetical author will get right on that.
What changed in the 10 or 20 years where he had copyright that it becomes a successful work as soon as copyright drops? I'm not suggesting he compete with Disney. I'm suggesting that if the only difference between the two time spans was marketing that he screwed up and it's his fault.
Well, that's an incredibly facile point of view and I'm happy to let you keep having it. Thanks for the discussion fellas, I think I've said all I really can.
I tend to define the good guy as public domain, so yes, the good guy is winning in that scenario. It going public domain means that someone writing some fanfiction of his works is allowed.
This is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Is anyone shutting down fanfiction? No, no one gives a shit unless you want to publish it and make money from it.
The Gray Album is the musical equivalent of fan fiction and only avoided being killed due to public outcry. Star Wars mods for various video games are even closer to fan fiction (ie: not published) and LucasArts was notorious for going after them for a long time. I'm fairly certain that Games Workshop is also similarly zealous.
Part of that is trademark, not copyright. Trademarks have to be enforced to remain valid, so with some IP you end up with what would be a rather disproportionate response for copyright, but necessary under the law for trademark.
Some of it is, some of it isn't. The first case mentioned was copyright, the others have mixed and matched as needed to kill derivative works.
It seems to me that if Bob Titfuck is such a good author, then I would want him to continue writing novels. Is it so much to ask that he produces new work every ten years if he wants to continue making good money as an author? That seems like no less than what we demand from people working in non-artistic fields.
It turns out that's not how creativity works. You seriously want a world where Harper Lee had to write To Kill A Mockingbird 2 to pay the bills? Is the point of copyright to force artists to do what you want them to because you believe in some bizarre moral imperative for them to create?
The point of copyright is to promote the creation of copyrightable works. It is neutral as to the source of those works. Having it last a day clearly isn't long enough to help anybody, but having it last until the heat death of the universe would also clearly stifle the creation of new works. Where you consider the balance to be appropriate in terms of protecting the creator's livelihood and promoting new creators doing stuff is very much up to debate based on a lot of different factors. From what I've read and researched (during my IP class at library school) I'm comfortable with having it last for a ~generation (20-30 years) but can also readily see the argument for having it last a ~lifetime (40-80 years depending on if we're talking working or living) so I'm not too tied up on that. Lasting for your lifetime and then also for your grandkid's lifetime (as it pretty much currently does, with life +70) strikes me as far too excessive, though.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
What this is all coming down to is the pant-on-head idea that somehow "art" is of less value than any other talent. Like, if you can make money off of your novel or play or song or whatever, you shouldn't be able to make as much as you can because fuck you, get a real job.
Here's another hypothetical example: Bob Titfuck writes a brilliant novel about the human condition called A Tale Of Shitting Cocks. It isn't a mega hit, but because of lifetime copyright he makes enough off it to live comfortably for the rest of his life. Same example under a 10 year copyright expiration: Bob Titfuck writes a brilliant novel about the human condition called A Tale Of Shitting Cocks. He makes enough money to live off of it for ten years, at which point his copyright expires and Disney use their massive marketing clout to make a billion dollars off it without paying him a penny. He can't even keep selling the book, because any independent publishing attempt he makes is going to be completely crowded out. Is the good guy winning in this scenario? Is that what we want?
That's not a failure of copyright, that's a failure of anti-trust regulators allowing an oligopoly to exist within the publishing/distribution market. If you don't let firms collude/erect barriers to entry for getting your work out to the public then you'd be able to see A Tale of Shitting Cocks starring Ryan Gosling up in lights. After all a billion dollars without competition today is better than the promise of a billion dollars tomorrow. Especially if those assholes over at 21st Century Marmoset are going to be the ones that pocket it.
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I tend to define the good guy as public domain, so yes, the good guy is winning in that scenario. It going public domain means that someone writing some fanfiction of his works is allowed.
Writing fanfiction is allowed now.
I think Tube's point is that there seems little reason to speed up the putting of works in public domain unless you begrudge original artists for making money of one thing for their entire life (instead of a short period of it). Particularly because when things go into public domain is just means big corporations are making money on the work instead of the original artist.
Then again, with the digitalisation of shit and the world wide web thing that seems to be sticking around I wonder if that's going to happen. It seems likely that no one is going to be making any money of it because getting versions of stuff you want online for free is possible. The fact that such is already the case for shit that isn't in the public domain seems a good enough reason to assume that.
[If the difference between his success and failure was marketing, why did he not attempt to do some? Or is the theory that no one will be willing to work with him for a percent of the profits (and possibly an upfront payment that he takes out a loan on).
This is fucking asinine. You're suggesting an independent "does some marketing" that somehow lets him compete with Disney, who have multiple floors of multiple buildings dedicated to marketing? Oh yeah, ok, our hypothetical author will get right on that.
I tell you what then, he'll do the other thing you suggested. He'll go to a PR company and offer them a percentage of profits and an upfront payment to market his book. And they'll say "no thanks" and market the book themselves because he has absolutely no legal recourse without copyright. But no, sure, he'll somehow bootstrap a marketing department out of a bank loan. That they'll totally give him despite the fact that if they ask how he's going to compete in that market with no leverage he'll say "uuuuhhhhhh"
Copyright that lasts 10 years, like Syrdon suggested, is infinitely longer than not having copyright which you seem to be assuming here. Only _J_ appears to be suggesting that it cease to exist entirely. Everyone else is quibbling over how long something should be prevented from entering the public domain.
What this is all coming down to is the pant-on-head idea that somehow "art" is of less value than any other talent. Like, if you can make money off of your novel or play or song or whatever, you shouldn't be able to make as much as you can because fuck you, get a real job.
And that strikes me as really fucking stupid.
Are you defining 'as much as you can' as in perpetuity throughout your hereditary family's existence? Because if not (and given your previous posts I know you don't) then we're arguing over days not first principles.
Posts
edit: You're describing a problem with the legal system, not with copyright. I'm all for preventing the issue you describe, but what you suggest as a solution has awful secondary consequences and doesn't fix the legal system that caused the problems in the first place.
The "chain of reasoning" has something to do with a primary assumption that can be approximated as, "Laissez Faire Capitalism, as understood by SKFM, is justice / fairness / goodness.", whereby reality can be understood and mirrored by means of economic exchanges between atomistic rationally self-interested consumers.
More than one person has taken on large entities and one (the My Sweet Lord case for instance), but either way what you're saying here is that there is a problem with the legal system, not with copyright.
What grounds do you have for your apparent belief that absolutely none of your work is derivative in any conceivable way?
*Which he wouldn't. Sorry. Argue about corporate power all you want, but in this example where he simply took my song wholesale the case would be open and shut. Copyright in the internet age is easier to prove that it has ever been. Google "famous plagiarism cases" if you don't believe me.
Copyright doesn't prevent works from being derivative or Lady Gaga wouldn't exist. Everything is derivative. You can still make a story about an alien from a dying planet who comes to earth and does only good. Those comics exist in their many.
Yeah, I'm very much in favour of strong copyright protections. Provided those protections are only existent for a reasonable, and reasonably short, duration so as to provide for an expanding public domain. This also requires strong protections for instances of simultaneous discovery.
(Simultaneous discovery, by the way, is why I hate the frame of 'property' when it comes to intellectual property. I can't imagine up a blender into existence. I can imagine an idea that somebody else has considered before me without ever having known of that person's existence. In fact, due to my bookishness I realize just how little originality most of my own perspectives have.)
This would bring about a society which even George Orwell would have laughed at as an absurd proposition, beyond even talking pigs. Speculative fiction of the most dystopian kind. You are describing a society that would be begging and deserving to be torn down by a new Solon or a Hammurabi.
Actually I'd love to see a novel written with this premise. The world we know but with SKFM's Bright New Initiative put into action, we see what it looks like 2000 years from now.
"Fucking awful" would be my guess, as all human progress grinds to a halt and we enter a new Dark Age of Disney (or whichever Mega-Corp owns the rights to all human knowledge).
Life of the author is a good benchmark for private works. Corporations should either have a set limit or have to say "our employee Healthy Bob came up with this" and have it tied to him.
Only so long as there is sufficient originality in the derivative work as to qualify as a fair use* of the original source material. Which would become nearly impossible over time when facing perpetual copyright as every new idea and interpretation crowds out the potential for future iterations of that interpretation until the heat death of the universe.
*Restricting things to commercial rather than various other forms of use that are protected by their non-commercial nature.
What would you say is the benefit of 'life of the author' over a set shorter period (10 years?) Doesn't a shorter period promote more innovation, since authors will have an incentive to continually create new characters and works rather than continually profit off of their first big idea?
A certain well-known GNU activist beat you to it a while ago. (It's not very good but it gets the point across)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
EDIT: Actually it's a short story rather than a novel. hth
Like I said earlier, I'm not that big a fan of 'life of the author' start dates since it isn't always clear when somebody dies. Having a date certain which is basically equivalent to somewhere between average working life - life expectancy at date of publication rounded up/ that +10 years from date of creation (whichever is sooner) seems a lot more straightforward. So, say 40-50 years or 79-89 years. This also takes out the potential risk premium you put on an author's kids if they should meet with an early demise.
I'd personally prefer the former (actually I'd prefer shorter, so 25 years) since it enables people influenced by a work to be able to actually play around with that work during their working years but I'm not so strident on that as to say no in comparison to our current situation of a constantly extended date of copyright expiration so that basically nothing* has entered the public domain since 1923 and won't until 2019 assuming we don't change it again before then.
*Some orphan works from the 60's are potentially in the public domain provided you can prove they did not extend their copyright before the retroactive automatic extension for works in the 70's.
It's probably as simple as nobody really wanting to see an artist go totally unrewarded in the event of eventual commercial exploitation of their work within their lifetime.
7 years from publication.
+7 years upon application for a nominal fee to cover administration and such, say $100.
+5 years upon repeated applications, with each 5 year extension requiring an exponentially higher registration fee (For example doubling each time, although perhaps other bases might work better. The ratio of the golden rectangle is deliciously irrational!)
If it's worth 2.048 billion dollars (or whatever) to Disney to keep the Mouse copyrighted for another 5 years, so be it. The public is reimbursed for the loss. If in further 5 years, Disney decides that the Mouse isn't worth another 4.096 billion, then into the domain he goes, derivative works ahoy!
For some reason, the proponents of "intellectual property" are never very keen on extending the concept to paying property taxes. For my part, I think the idea of treating a thought or a sound as "property" is as disgusting as treating person as property, and for much the same reason.
Why "disgusting" and why "for much the same reason"?
I'd agree with you that treating thought or sound as "property" is problematic, but we seem to vastly differ on our reasons for why that is.
They're both an attempt to treat consciousness as property.
That's an interesting way of putting it.
Well firstly, that wouldn't happen, and secondly I think you're trying to solve a problem with shorter lifespans that doesn't exist.
Everyone uses Disney as an example so here it is. If Disney loses the copyright to Mickey Mouse after ten years, that doesn't mean they stop making Mickey Mouse. It means that they keep doing it but now so do Marvel or NBC or whoever else. Disney now call itself Home Of The Original Mickey Mouse. If the purpose of copyright is to force individual artists to innovate rather than profit off one work (which, by the way, it absolutely fucking isn't), this doesn't do that.
Secondly the very premise I outlined should demonstrate that this isn't a problem anyway. Do Disney do nothing but make Mickey Mouse cartoons? Do they fuck. They come up with a bunch of other shit because they make more profit that way.
The idea that there's some kind of moral failing in an artist doing one thing and then living off it is an absurd one. If an artist only has one good idea in their whole life and it's good enough for them to live off forever, more power to them. Harper Lee doesn't ever need to pick up a typewriter again, because To Kill A Mockingbird was the absolute tits. This is not a bug, this is Working As Intended.
Here's another hypothetical example: Bob Titfuck writes a brilliant novel about the human condition called A Tale Of Shitting Cocks. It isn't a mega hit, but because of lifetime copyright he makes enough off it to live comfortably for the rest of his life. Same example under a 10 year copyright expiration: Bob Titfuck writes a brilliant novel about the human condition called A Tale Of Shitting Cocks. He makes enough money to live off of it for ten years, at which point his copyright expires and Disney use their massive marketing clout to make a billion dollars off it without paying him a penny. He can't even keep selling the book, because any independent publishing attempt he makes is going to be completely crowded out. Is the good guy winning in this scenario? Is that what we want?
If, on the other hand, the reason he can't get any sales after his copyright runs out is because Disney can present his work better than he can ... then maybe he needs to come up with a way to do a better job.
This is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Is anyone shutting down fanfiction? No, no one gives a shit unless you want to publish it and make money from it.
Publishing it is cheap. Marketing it isn't. There is absolutely no way to compete with the corporate juggernaut that, under your system, no longer has to give even the slightest fuck about content creators.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about whether this is a monstrous and absurd concept.
If Disney can present his work better than he can, maybe they should pay him to do so. Companies pay other companies and individuals to use their works all the time. Somehow, that person continuing to be paid for what they created while they're still alive doesn't prevent other people from also using that concept and making money off of it, they just have to get permission and pay for it first. I don't see how that's all that bad.
It turns out that's not how creativity works. You seriously want a world where Harper Lee had to write To Kill A Mockingbird 2 to pay the bills? Is the point of copyright to force artists to do what you want them to because you believe in some bizarre moral imperative for them to create?
I would hope Harper Lee could come up with a more original idea for a book. But no, in general terms I don't have a problem with the idea that if you want to work as a creative then you have to produce something new every now and then.
There's only so much you can directly discuss about the erection of a monolithic master system with regard to what you can functionally do about it past notifying people/politicians that this exists however, so the tracks appear to have taken the direction of copyright in general.
This is fucking asinine. You're suggesting an independent "does some marketing" that somehow lets him compete with Disney, who have multiple floors of multiple buildings dedicated to marketing? Oh yeah, ok, our hypothetical author will get right on that.
I tell you what then, he'll do the other thing you suggested. He'll go to a PR company and offer them a percentage of profits and an upfront payment to market his book. And they'll say "no thanks" and market the book themselves because he has absolutely no legal recourse without copyright. But no, sure, he'll somehow bootstrap a marketing department out of a bank loan. That they'll totally give him despite the fact that if they ask how he's going to compete in that market with no leverage he'll say "uuuuhhhhhh"
This is a question I asked earlier on this page (6), and haven't seen anyone answer it yet, but seems to be directly related to the case you're talking about:
Is a work becoming commercialized more than a decade after creation a thing that happens?
edit: or were you attempting to suggest that the work produces a constant quantity of money over time and that Disney simply gets to make more (billions vs comfortable living) because they exist longer?
Part of that is trademark, not copyright. Trademarks have to be enforced to remain valid, so with some IP you end up with what would be a rather disproportionate response for copyright, but necessary under the law for trademark.
- John Stuart Mill
Well, that's an incredibly facile point of view and I'm happy to let you keep having it. Thanks for the discussion fellas, I think I've said all I really can.
The point of copyright is to promote the creation of copyrightable works. It is neutral as to the source of those works. Having it last a day clearly isn't long enough to help anybody, but having it last until the heat death of the universe would also clearly stifle the creation of new works. Where you consider the balance to be appropriate in terms of protecting the creator's livelihood and promoting new creators doing stuff is very much up to debate based on a lot of different factors. From what I've read and researched (during my IP class at library school) I'm comfortable with having it last for a ~generation (20-30 years) but can also readily see the argument for having it last a ~lifetime (40-80 years depending on if we're talking working or living) so I'm not too tied up on that. Lasting for your lifetime and then also for your grandkid's lifetime (as it pretty much currently does, with life +70) strikes me as far too excessive, though.
And that strikes me as really fucking stupid.
That's not a failure of copyright, that's a failure of anti-trust regulators allowing an oligopoly to exist within the publishing/distribution market. If you don't let firms collude/erect barriers to entry for getting your work out to the public then you'd be able to see A Tale of Shitting Cocks starring Ryan Gosling up in lights. After all a billion dollars without competition today is better than the promise of a billion dollars tomorrow. Especially if those assholes over at 21st Century Marmoset are going to be the ones that pocket it.
Writing fanfiction is allowed now.
I think Tube's point is that there seems little reason to speed up the putting of works in public domain unless you begrudge original artists for making money of one thing for their entire life (instead of a short period of it). Particularly because when things go into public domain is just means big corporations are making money on the work instead of the original artist.
Then again, with the digitalisation of shit and the world wide web thing that seems to be sticking around I wonder if that's going to happen. It seems likely that no one is going to be making any money of it because getting versions of stuff you want online for free is possible. The fact that such is already the case for shit that isn't in the public domain seems a good enough reason to assume that.
Copyright that lasts 10 years, like Syrdon suggested, is infinitely longer than not having copyright which you seem to be assuming here. Only _J_ appears to be suggesting that it cease to exist entirely. Everyone else is quibbling over how long something should be prevented from entering the public domain.
Are you defining 'as much as you can' as in perpetuity throughout your hereditary family's existence? Because if not (and given your previous posts I know you don't) then we're arguing over days not first principles.