Yeah for you it sounds pretty profitable. This issue came up over at debate.org already https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-intellectual-property-rights-be-abolished most people decided it needs to go.
Stage 9 gets cease and desist order from CBS
- Thread starter StarTrekRecuts
- Start date
Yeah for you it sounds pretty profitable. This issue came up over at debate.org already https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-intellectual-property-rights-be-abolished most people decided it needs to go.
Ooo... most people over at debate.org? Well! Then my mind has been CHANGED.
But, seriously, no. No. Why should it be abolished? Why should I not have control over my work?
Without copyright, JK Rowling would not have been able to make a living, let alone, her fortune.
Without copyright, CBS and Paramount would not have had control over Star Trek to make TNG, DS9 or Voyager...
Without copyright, George RR Martin wouldn't have been paid by HBO to make Game of Thrones.
Without copyright, how many bands would be ripped off if there music was used in a commercial?
Without copyright, how many visual artists would be ripped off if their stuff was used in a print ad?
Personally, this desire for the destruction of IP laws is entitlement, a bunch of kids who have grown up on the internet in the shadow of Napster and everything should be free because it's digital.
It shouldn't be free because people put their work, time, and their own money, into making something. If you enjoy it, you should pay for it. Not rip off the person and say, "IP doesn't exist!!"
Buzz off
Exactly this. As much as I hear the frustration around IP, my wife is a writer and she has to navigate all those waters. I would shudder at what monies she could lose because someone regards her novel so poorly as to expect it for free.
Star Trek is CBS property. If they say no, they said no. To Stage 9's credit they honored that. So, hat's off to them.
The sense of entitlement that is presented by fans regarding a property is staggering to me. I cannot fathom that individuals would allow their own personal property to be treated as franchises are, yet here we are.
boohoo, so there wouldn't be a monopoly on ideas. There would probably be 100 spin off star trek series going on right now if IP laws didn't exist. I like that better than seeing star trek sit and collect dust for 10 years. Information would be more freely available. https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property
Information is already freely available.
Seriously? This feels like a push to assert power and control over other people's property.
Seriously? This feels like a push to assert power and control over other people's property.
Not really, it's a step back from that and is about whether it's appropriate to consider intangible things as property. Just like at one point people might have thought it was okay to own slaves as property before it was determined later people should not be classified as property.
I don't know how many times it needs repeating before you actually understand: you cannot copyright an IDEA. You copyright the execution of the idea.
The reason Star Trek is gathering dust isn't because of copyright laws. It's more brutal. It's more in line with the IP free, Libertarian dream you want: it's the market. There isn't the market for Star Trek as there once was.
But, again, because you didn't answer it: Why should I, as an artist, not have any control over my work? That's what you are advocating for... Why don't you answer it? Why should a band be screwed out of money when their music is used in a commercial so YOU can have 100 spin offs of Star Trek?
Again, your posts sound petty, entitled and childish.
So you're saying if you wrote a story, then someone copied that story and just changed a few ideas, then claimed it as their own work, you wouldn't be upset?
Also Star Trek isn't gathering dust.
Since the intangibles produce tangible results for the property owner, I would say that it is absolutely appropriate for the crafter of an expression of an idea, book, poem, art, and media, to control how it is used, like any other property.
In other words, it costs the creator something to make it, and that effort should be honored, not deprived due to a sense of entitlement of control over a franchise product.
Or, do you advocate that Deviant Art artists should not be mad when people use their artwork without permission? Or perhaps that musicians should not be upset when their song is uploaded to YouTube in support of a video they might not agree with?
How far is their freedom worth before it is infringed for the sake of others being able to freely use another's property?
Not sure why you keep repeating that, is there a point your trying to make there? The expression of an idea is in itself an idea. It's just semantics to me. If someone has the idea to create the same thing or wants to make a copy of the same thing at no cost to you if they had no intention of paying for it then it why should it be a problem?
Because if it doesn't cost anything to make a copy of it there doesn't need to be anything that says you're entitled to money. If you wrote a hard-cover book and put the physical material together yourself then people shouldn't be allowed to steal it since there is a cost to you. But making a copy at no cost to you is something different. The reason why you should not have control is if your work can be improved and made available cheaper, more people benefit as a whole.
Lots of things upset me, that doesn't mean I think they should put laws around it and put people in prison over it.
They put in the work to make the original but making a copy these days is cheap and requires no labor on their part or mine. In star trek, if I like something that someone made by hand, I can scan it and replicate it at no cost to the original creator and then replicate another. I can pay someone for the original but I wouldn't need to pay them to replicate a copy.
Yes. That you don't seem to understand what copyright is... for example...
No. It really isn't. The idea of Forbidden Planet doesn't prevent Star Trek. The idea of Babylon 5 didn't prevent Deep Space Nice. Because IDEAS ARE NOT COPYRIGHTABLE. It's the execution.
I can have the idea of a boy wizard going to wizard school, and JK can't stop me. She can't even stop me if I execute it. She CAN stop me if I name him Harry Potter and he goes to Hogwarts....
It doesn't matter because to everyone else, the idea of something is different than the actual thing itself. Me having an idea for a novel is a FAR different thing than me having that novel finished and complete.
Because if someone wants to make a copy of my novel that I have published instead of paying for it, they are literally impacting on my ability to pay for my mortgage or my grocery bills. I think most people would consider that a problem.
Do you work for free?
So, no writer, no musician, no artist should be able to make a living because you feel you are entitled to a free copy?
Just because it costs "nothing" to make a copy, why do you think the artist shouldn't be paid for their work in making the thing? Do you feel their work has no value?
An artist's work has no value? Their time? Their talent?
How will more people benefit from my art if I have no place to live and no food to eat while making the art you want to consume for free? Or should I take a side job that would prevent me from making my art?
Why do you hold no value of the artist? Why should the artist not benefit just so you can get stuff for free?
Then you and I are at an impasse. This is not Star Trek and there are no replicators. An unauthorized copy represents taking away from original creator a potential sale. Essentially declaring the work to be worthless and that a creator should just work for free and not benefit from the fruits of their labor.
Unless you truly believe that one sale is sufficient to compensate the creator for the time and effort required to create? Because, I'll let you know, it's not.
They weren't paid to make the original. There are upfront costs to being an artist. Again, their time and their talent HAS a value, a value you diminish in an effort to get something for free.
Again, you are taking money out of the pockets of people because you want something for free. Shame on you.
So artists and writers should just not get any money and die destitute?
Isn't that still the case now? Hence the term "starving artist" and why there is advocacy for a minimum stipend to support those who want to explore the arts, among other reasons?
Yeah ideas don't exist except within our minds and cannot be punished for having them so of course when I say "idea" I mean "expression of an idea" in your language. If an element of one story is sufficiently similar to an element of another story somewhere in the world whether deliberately or by chance, opens the door for someone to pursue legal action. For example the cardassian Obsidian Order on Deep Space Nine was originally going to be called the "Gray Order" but once they learned that Babylon 5 was going to have a "Gray Council" they changed the name to "Obsidian Order".
Yes that sounds like a problem for the author. But why should it be my problem? Maybe the government or some other entity could invent a way to compensate the author. It's not my fault things can be copied easily or people get replaced by technology in the work place.
But there are 3D printers. If someone makes something for me I would pay them for their time. If I made a 3D print of something I wouldn't expect to.
But, you making it still costs you time and money to make it. Just like it costs a creator their time and their money and efforts to create. So, unless there is a way to compensate them up front for their efforts, changing the law to not protect copyright will result in less art not more.
That's why copyright law exists. To protect the author. Protection that is being asked to be removed and the creator's efforts rendered worthless by extension.
Similar threads
