I wish Harlan Ellison would just die already...

[JarodRussell]

Lifetime. At least. Maybe I wrote a short story that was published in a small magazine, not much readership. 50 years later, I finally write the book that breaks through.

Should I no longer have a write to that story I wrote at the beginning?

But it's in the public domain. You can write it. And then you have secured new rights again 20-30 years for your new book.
Public domain doesn't mean that the author loses his rights while everybody else and his dog gains the rights. Everybody including the author has the same rights then.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Lifetime. At least. Maybe I wrote a short story that was published in a small magazine, not much readership. 50 years later, I finally write the book that breaks through.

Should I no longer have a write to that story I wrote at the beginning?

But it's in the public domain. You can write it. And then you have secured new rights again 20-30 years for your new book.
Public domain doesn't mean that the author loses his rights while everybody else and his dog gains the rights. Everybody including the author has the same rights then.

You know what? You're totally on your own... Bye!

 

[Sindatur]

Lifetime. At least. Maybe I wrote a short story that was published in a small magazine, not much readership. 50 years later, I finally write the book that breaks through.

Should I no longer have a write to that story I wrote at the beginning?

But it's in the public domain. You can write it. And then you have secured new rights again 20-30 years for your new book.

But not for the story he wrote 40 years ago, that never hit, but, now has interest, because of the new book. If that first story wasn't in Public Domain, he'd have 2 big stories available, but, with it in Public Domain, he no longer has it, because he doesn't ahve the money to make a movie himself, but, the Studios do have the money, and don't have to give him anything

 

[JarodRussell]

Lifetime. At least. Maybe I wrote a short story that was published in a small magazine, not much readership. 50 years later, I finally write the book that breaks through.

Should I no longer have a write to that story I wrote at the beginning?

But it's in the public domain. You can write it. And then you have secured new rights again 20-30 years for your new book.

But not for the story he wrote 40 years ago, that never hit, but, now has interest, because of the new book. If that first story wasn't in Public Domain, he'd have 2 big stories available, but, with it in Public Domain, he no longer has it, because he doesn't ahve the money to make a movie himself, but, the Studios do have the money, and don't have to give him anything

Where we are with my original argument again, where I said the author should get compensated in any case.

I initially argued that everyone should be allowed to adapt, but has to compensate the original author.
Then the argument went to the need of permissions. Then we went to public domain and why it is okay to rip off a story 50 years after the death of the author, and why it would not be okay during the author's lifetime.

And now we "rip off" the story during the author's lifetime, AND compensate him for it.
The author gets money for every use of every creation he made. For his entire life. But everyone is allowed to adapt his works. It's a win win situation.

We've come full circle to my original point.

 

[Professor Zoom]

But it's in the public domain. You can write it. And then you have secured new rights again 20-30 years for your new book.

But not for the story he wrote 40 years ago, that never hit, but, now has interest, because of the new book. If that first story wasn't in Public Domain, he'd have 2 big stories available, but, with it in Public Domain, he no longer has it, because he doesn't ahve the money to make a movie himself, but, the Studios do have the money, and don't have to give him anything

Where we are with my original argument again, where I said the author should get compensated in any case.

I initially argued that everyone should be allowed to adapt, but has to compensate the original author.
Then the argument went to the need of permissions. Then we went to public domain and why it is okay to rip off a story 50 years after the death of the author, and why it would not be okay during the author's lifetime.

And now we rip off the story during the author's lifetime, AND compensate him for it.

We've come full circle.

I've changed my mind. I'll respond this final time to your foolish idea.

With your idea, I can take something, make a movie, as long as I pay the author... Who sets the price? The author? The movie maker? With YOUR idea, it's the movie maker. Because the Author LOSES HIS BIGGEST BARGAINING CHIP, the right to say NO.

So, who sets the price? Obviously the person who is taking the material. Here, Bradbury, here's five bucks, I'm going to go make Martian Chronicles, suck on it. By YOUR rules, he can't say NO. AND, he can't stop me... As long as he's paid...

 

[Sindatur]

But it's in the public domain. You can write it. And then you have secured new rights again 20-30 years for your new book.

But not for the story he wrote 40 years ago, that never hit, but, now has interest, because of the new book. If that first story wasn't in Public Domain, he'd have 2 big stories available, but, with it in Public Domain, he no longer has it, because he doesn't ahve the money to make a movie himself, but, the Studios do have the money, and don't have to give him anything

Where we are with my original argument again, where I said the author should get compensated in any case.

I initially argued that everyone should be allowed to adapt, but has to compensate the original author.
Then the argument went to the need of permissions. Then we went to public domain and why it is okay to rip off a story 50 years after the death of the author, and why it would not be okay during the author's lifetime.

And now we "rip off" the story during the author's lifetime, AND compensate him for it.

We've come full circle.

That makes no sense. Public Domain means you do what you want with the story, it's up for grabs. Copywrite means the holder controls what happens to his story, and if he decides to allow someone to use it, he's compensated in the amount he dictates.

So, you'd be OK with someone making a Beastiality Porno out of your earlier work, nothing you can do about it, except take the $500. they slide you (if they even choose to compensate you). I think in some ways, that's worse.

 

[RJDiogenes]

That's exactly it. Technology has made it very easy to steal-- and people think that makes it okay.

I agree. But that isn't a problem with people - it's a societal problem. If the technology were available in the 1950's, when the majority of Americans were happy with their lives, felt secure in the fact that they would probably find a job when they are out of school, and felt a connection to their country and their fellow Americans, file sharing would not have been as big a problem as it is in today's society.

In other words, we should be focused on fixing society - not individuals.

I certainly don't disagree with that.

And no Copyright at all was good enough for Shakespeare-- or at least that's what he had to settle for. Luckily, legal protections have improved over time.

You support infinite copyright, beyond the life of the creator? Explain why.

I would certainly be happy if that were to come to pass. Why? Because intellectual property is not inferior to physical property.

There's no reason why intellectual property should have inferior protection to physical property.

Intellectual property is not the same as physical property, and it hasn't been since the first caveman sat down beside a fire and talked about a tiger hunt that another caveman told to him. That's plenty of reason. For instance, stealing physical property deprives the owner of its use. Physical property does not naturally multiply as a result of its exploitation. Physical property does not naturally diffuse across large groups of people. Physical property is a discrete, objective entity. It is logically impossible for two people to independently create two chairs similar enough that one could be accused of stealing his from the other, while it's perfectly possible for two people to independently invent similar devices, or write similar stories.

All of that is irrelevant. When a creator creates a work of art, it's his, and he has the right to maintain its integrity as he sees fit and to profit by it or not profit by it. It's his. Simple as that.

Nobody is restraining your freedom of expression-- they're restraining you from stealing somebody else's work.

J.R.R. Tolkien attempts to use elves in The Lord of the Rings. Gary Gygax attempts to use Hobbits in Dungeons and Dragons. You argue that one of these is theft, and the other is not. Explain why.

Elves are folklore and have no owner.

That's exactly it. Technology has made it very easy to steal-- and people think that makes it okay.

And home taping killed the music industry.

I have a memory. I have vocal chords. I could've stolen a song as easily a hundred and fifty years ago as I can today, and with significantly greater expectation of monetary gain.

Stealing was also wrong a hundred and fifty years ago.

 

[JarodRussell]

But not for the story he wrote 40 years ago, that never hit, but, now has interest, because of the new book. If that first story wasn't in Public Domain, he'd have 2 big stories available, but, with it in Public Domain, he no longer has it, because he doesn't ahve the money to make a movie himself, but, the Studios do have the money, and don't have to give him anything

Where we are with my original argument again, where I said the author should get compensated in any case.

I initially argued that everyone should be allowed to adapt, but has to compensate the original author.
Then the argument went to the need of permissions. Then we went to public domain and why it is okay to rip off a story 50 years after the death of the author, and why it would not be okay during the author's lifetime.

And now we rip off the story during the author's lifetime, AND compensate him for it.

We've come full circle.

I've changed my mind. I'll respond this final time to your foolish idea.

With your idea, I can take something, make a movie, as long as I pay the author... Who sets the price? The author? The movie maker? With YOUR idea, it's the movie maker. Because the Author LOSES HIS BIGGEST BARGAINING CHIP, the right to say NO.

So, who sets the price? Obviously the person who is taking the material. Here, Bradbury, here's five bucks, I'm going to go make Martian Chronicles, suck on it. By YOUR rules, he can't say NO. AND, he can't stop me... As long as he's paid...

How does a fixed percentage of the earnings sound for you? Calculated based on how many elements of the original creation are reused? Let's say they adapt a novel to a movie, and that translates into 10% of the earnings. They take a script without any changes and that's worth 15%? And the movie makes 100 million? Beware, this was an example.

Of course nobody should be allowed to seriously rip anyone off by just giving them 5 bucks. Of course that would have to be *drumroll*

REGULATED

Oh damn, I said the communist's favorite word, didn't I?

That makes no sense. Public Domain means you do what you want with the story, it's up for grabs. Copywrite means the holder controls what happens to his story, and if he decides to allow someone to use it, he's compensated in the amount he dictates.

So, you'd be OK with someone making a Beastiality Porno out of your earlier work, nothing you can do about it, except take the $500. they slide you (if they even choose to compensate you). I think in some ways, that's worse.

I wouldn't want someone doing a Beastiality Porno out of my work 50 years after my death either, and then they wouldn't have to pay a single cent. So what can I do about that?

Yes, the current Public Domain means it's up for grabs. What I'm advocating all the time here is that everything should not simply be up for grabs. Yes, everyone should be allowed to adapt works, but still have to compensate the author. And yes, the compensation would not just be $5, as stated above. It would be defined within the laws how much a work is worth. Based on the popularity and worth of the original work (did the book sell 1 thousand or 1 million copies for example). Based on how many elements are used. Etc. And it should be tied to the earnings of the derivative work. Nobody would be ripped off easily then. The original author can't ask for 200 million when the production cost 50 million, and they can't just rip of an author with 99 cents when they earn a billion and a half at the box office. Both sides would be protected.

 

[Sindatur]

The example said the original book didn't sell well. It's gotten attention now, because of his new book, which has been on the Best Seller list for 20 Weeks. So, the Adapting party wants to rush it into Production so they get away with the lowest number of books sold on that first work. Or maybe it was Published in a magazine all those years ago (not purchased by the magazine, just published, story still belongs to Prof Zoom). How do you judge how much of the Magazine sales is due to the story?

Population was way smaller 40 years ago, is there a calculator to account for that?

Easy for a studio to tack on extra costs to the budget, to lower the profit that is split up (Make did mean profit right?)

 

[nightwind1]

J.R.R. Tolkien attempts to use elves in The Lord of the Rings. Gary Gygax attempts to use Hobbits in Dungeons and Dragons. You argue that one of these is theft, and the other is not. Explain why.

Because the term "hobbit" was created by Tolkien. "Halfling" was not created by Tolkien, so that's why Gygax was able to just change the name to halfling without changing the character stats. (I've been a gamer for over 35 years, and have read Tolkien annually for over 30. Want to try again?)

That doesn't explain why Tolkien was morally correct to use Elves, Goblins, Wizards and other preexisting fantasy creatures, or why simply changing the name would magically make it so Gygax no longer "stole" the concept. How are those not theft, as it's been described by several posters in the thread?

Because the Norse Edda's, Arthurian mythos, Celtic myths and other stuff that inspired Tolkien were legends and myths, passed down orally and written for centuries, not original creations by a single person under copyright.

Did you even go to school?

 

[David cgc]

People are arguing of WHAT the time period is, but no one seems to be arguing for an infinite or indefinite period.

First of all, the following posts either explicitly or by implication advocate rationales for copyright that is indefinite.

Florence Stoker did the same thing with Nosferatu. Nosferatu was a beautiful work of art but legally and morally it had no right to exist at all. Or rather it did but only if Murnau had bothered to pay the Stoker estate for the privilege of adapting a copyrighted work.

You're basically trading on the work of SOMEONE ELSE to make a gazillion bucks. Trading on the Star Wars BRAND. Which you had nothing to do with.

THAT'S why you have to pay. To secure the copyright AND the trademark. Someone else did the work FIRST.

You think you should have a right to piggy back on someone else's hard work, so you can make a quick buck?

Secondly, as I said, reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument. You, and others, argue that there are absolutely no negative consequences to Ellison pursuing legal action, perhaps to excess, against works he deems similar to his own. In fact, you're kind of snooty about it. "If they're 'creators,' they should 'create!'" and so forth. No one, as you say, has a problem with ripping off the long-dead, even though they'll refer to ripping off the still-living in the most pejorative of ways, impugning their artistic credentials and simple human decency for daring to explore a concept that did not originate wholly from their own brain without any outside influence. If it's a moral issue of simple theft and lack of artistic integrity, then there's no difference between doing something similar to an Ellison story and doing something similar to a Shakespeare story. At all.

Now, thankfully, we've established (mostly) that copyright infringement is not a problem of moral character, and is a problem because (or rather, when) it prevents an artist from making a living as an artist. The argument has served it's purpose, and may now be safely set aside.

And finally, I think it should at least for the lifetime of the artist. Why should something I wrote, that I put the sweat equity into slide into public domain. Shouldn't, at the very least, I be able to exploit MY work? Maybe I don't break through as a writer until I'm 60, and now there's an interest in the work I wrote when I was 20... Why should others profit from publishing it, but not me?

That should be "Why should others profit from publishing it, in addition to me?" My answer, unfortunately, is "Tough shit, you had your chance." There's almost no other profession on the planet where it would be even slightly reasonable for someone to be able to continue profiting on a single act for upwards of sixty, seventy, or a hundred-plus years. Should a fireman be paid a bonus for every birthday a child he saved from a burning building subsequently has? Should a mechanic be paid every time an engine he built is resold? Should an accountant be paid every time the records he computed are referred to?

Still, I argue lifetime of the artist as an absolute maximum, you consider it an absolute minimum. I think we can agree on a compromise that keeps that son of a bitch Stephen Joyce from burning historically important letters. Family relations do not automatically make children the best-possible caretakers for their ancestors' legacy, especially as time goes by and they become as distant from the original artist as anyone off the street.

On further reflection, I should probably clarify that when I spoke of five or ten year periods of copyright, I was referring specifically to my feelings on the merit of accusations of infringement based on surface similarities such as the one that prompted this thread, and not to the publication of the original story as a whole. Again, two separate issues which have been conflated in this thread.

And how are you going to define the "lifetime of the audience?" The 50 year old who first reads the published story? Or the 13 year old? That 50 year old has a lot less life in him...

That was a reference to the previously-observed fact that everyone posting in this thread will be dead before Star Wars becomes public domain. Hope you weren't looking forward to anything like a Criterion Collection re-release of the theatrical editions of the original trilogy with historical commentary.

Maybe. But, then, I don't care. While I do think it's important for things to fall into the public domain, right now, my interest is in protecting the artist--Big, and more importantly, SMALL.

Culture seems to take care of itself.

That's a luxury you have, living in this glorious age after the death of public domain, but before we've had the chance to miss it.

I'm here talking about why there SHOULD be copyright protections for writers, and why it's a GOOD THING that Ellison stands up for his rights.

Oh, of course he is. Evil Andrew Niccol was just rifling through the bookstore, and said, "Hey, I'll write an unauthorized adaptation of this short story by the most ornery, litigious son of a bitch in contemporary american literature, who I almost certainly know about because this is not my first sci-fi rodeo. But I'll change virtually everything about it beyond the most basic, generic concepts!" Just like how Evil James Cameron said, "Hey, this old Outer Limits is really cool for the first five minutes, but then goes completely off the rails! Let's take the most important part, the guy from a future arriving in an alley with a hobo and then running into the cops, and then make some minor changes consisting of every other possible aspect of the story! Ha ha ha!" Or Evil 20th Century Fox saying, "Hey, this robot-murder mystery script about a robot that kills someone but shouldn't be able to because robots are programmed not to murder is a lot like two or three different short stories by Isaac Asimov about robots doing things robots aren't supposed to. Let's just produce it anyway without securing the rights, because no one will ever notice."

Wait, no, that last one didn't happen like that. And then people said it was so different they may as well have just kept it as a completely unrelated story and not sullied Asimov's name by clearing it.

Or we can just say that ideas are like unique little baubles, and if one idea looks too much like an earlier one, the latter is the result of malicious theft, an attempt to punish the greatness of the former out of jealousy of his artistic brilliance.

Again, no one is suggesting infinite or indefinite copyright. It's a boring strawman.

Where does that sarcastic statement have anything to do with length of copyright?

And no Copyright at all was good enough for Shakespeare-- or at least that's what he had to settle for. Luckily, legal protections have improved over time.

You support infinite copyright, beyond the life of the creator? Explain why.

I would certainly be happy if that were to come to pass. Why? Because intellectual property is not inferior to physical property.

Explain how. I explained why they were different, and you declared I was wrong by fiat, without any specifics. I guarantee you I will not do you the same discourtesy if you explain how intellectual property is exactly like physical property.

Intellectual property is not the same as physical property, and it hasn't been since the first caveman sat down beside a fire and talked about a tiger hunt that another caveman told to him. That's plenty of reason. For instance, stealing physical property deprives the owner of its use. Physical property does not naturally multiply as a result of its exploitation. Physical property does not naturally diffuse across large groups of people. Physical property is a discrete, objective entity. It is logically impossible for two people to independently create two chairs similar enough that one could be accused of stealing his from the other, while it's perfectly possible for two people to independently invent similar devices, or write similar stories.

All of that is irrelevant. When a creator creates a work of art, it's his, and he has the right to maintain its integrity as he sees fit and to profit by it or not profit by it. It's his. Simple as that.

Okay, you definitely need to watch Everything is a Remix and read How to Steal Like An Artist, because you've got some funny ideas about where ideas come from.

There is nothing simple about it, which you'd probably have already concluded if you didn't dismiss my points about the differences between intellectual and physical property out of hand. I cannot emphasize enough how rude I consider that to be.

Elves are folklore and have no owner.

Bullshit. Somebody used them first, somewhere. In your framework, the fact that you don't know who doesn't make them public domain (since that doesn't exist by your reckoning), it makes them orphaned works, so no one would be allowed to use them.

I have a memory. I have vocal chords. I could've stolen a song as easily a hundred and fifty years ago as I can today, and with significantly greater expectation of monetary gain.

Stealing was also wrong a hundred and fifty years ago.

Okay, so you allow for folk lore, but not folk music. Explain.

Because the Norse Edda's, Arthurian mythos, Celtic myths and other stuff that inspired Tolkien were legends and myths, passed down orally and written for centuries, not original creations by a single person under copyright.

Did you even go to school?

See above. Someone was first, even if you don't know who.

This is the trouble with the posters who were framing copyright litigation as punishing the amoral behavior of unoriginal hacks. You can't just say "Using other people's ideas is wrong and you should make up your own stuff, except when their names have been lost to history. In that case, you can steal as much as you like."

 

[nightwind1]

But it's in the public domain. You can write it. And then you have secured new rights again 20-30 years for your new book.

But not for the story he wrote 40 years ago, that never hit, but, now has interest, because of the new book. If that first story wasn't in Public Domain, he'd have 2 big stories available, but, with it in Public Domain, he no longer has it, because he doesn't ahve the money to make a movie himself, but, the Studios do have the money, and don't have to give him anything

Where we are with my original argument again, where I said the author should get compensated in any case.

I initially argued that everyone should be allowed to adapt, but has to compensate the original author.
Then the argument went to the need of permissions. Then we went to public domain and why it is okay to rip off a story 50 years after the death of the author, and why it would not be okay during the author's lifetime.

And now we "rip off" the story during the author's lifetime, AND compensate him for it.
The author gets money for every use of every creation he made. For his entire life. But everyone is allowed to adapt his works. It's a win win situation.

We've come full circle to my original point.

And it makes even less sense now than it did then.

 

[Professor Zoom]

People are arguing of WHAT the time period is, but no one seems to be arguing for an infinite or indefinite period.

First of all, the following posts either explicitly or by implication advocate rationales for copyright that is indefinite.

Florence Stoker did the same thing with Nosferatu. Nosferatu was a beautiful work of art but legally and morally it had no right to exist at all. Or rather it did but only if Murnau had bothered to pay the Stoker estate for the privilege of adapting a copyrighted work.

(I don't know why, when I've hit reply, my quotes disappear...but..)

The quotes of ME that you quoted, you're gonna have to explain how I implied an infinite copyright. ESPECIALLY when in other parts of this thread I have specifically pointed out that I'm FOR A FINITE copyright period.

Secondly, as I said, reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument.

It's a valid FORM of arguing. I don't see why you're using here. As I have stated through this thread, I believe in a finite copyright period. But, you're gonna do what you're gonna do, so...

You, and others, argue that there are absolutely no negative consequences to Ellison pursuing legal action, perhaps to excess, against works he deems similar to his own. In fact, you're kind of snooty about it. "If they're 'creators,' they should 'create!'" and so forth.

One man's snooty is another man's snarky.

No one, as you say, has a problem with ripping off the long-dead, even though they'll refer to ripping off the still-living in the most pejorative of ways, impugning their artistic credentials and simple human decency for daring to explore a concept that did not originate wholly from their own brain without any outside influence.

Or, you know, breaking the law... But, whatever...

If it's a moral issue of simple theft and lack of artistic integrity, then there's no difference between doing something similar to an Ellison story and doing something similar to a Shakespeare story. At all.

Except for the fact there's a LAW. But, don't let facts bother you.

We can borrow and steal and reproduce because it's in the public domain. We can't borrow, steal and reproduce what isn't.

So, yeah, I DO have a moral issue of simple theft. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S IN THE FUCKING LAW.

We as a society have agreed to let things go into the public domain, where it's FREE TO USE.

Until then, it's NOT. Why is this so hard to understand?

Now, thankfully, we've established (mostly) that copyright infringement is not a problem of moral character, and is a problem because (or rather, when) it prevents an artist from making a living as an artist. The argument has served it's purpose, and may now be safely set aside.

Which argument? Your Absurdo reductio? Or the fact that stealing something that isn't yours is wrong?

Stealing IS wrong, right? And until it's in the public domain, it IS NOT YOURS TO TAKE. Or is stealing NOT wrong?

So, I guess we haven't gotten rid of that moral quandary have we?

That should be "Why should others profit from publishing it, in addition to me?" My answer, unfortunately, is "Tough shit, you had your chance."

That's right. Life plus 50-75!

There's almost no other profession on the planet where it would be even slightly reasonable for someone to be able to continue profiting on a single act for upwards of sixty, seventy, or a hundred-plus years.

Tough shit for those other people! Maybe they should become writers or filmmakers or what have you.

Should a fireman be paid a bonus for every birthday a child he saved from a burning building subsequently has? Should a mechanic be paid every time an engine he built is resold? Should an accountant be paid every time the records he computed are referred to?

Nope.

Still, I argue lifetime of the artist as an absolute maximum, you consider it an absolute minimum. I think we can agree on a compromise that keeps that son of a bitch Stephen Joyce from burning historically important letters. Family relations do not automatically make children the best-possible caretakers for their ancestors' legacy, especially as time goes by and they become as distant from the original artist as anyone off the street.

No, they might not. But, it's up for them to decide. I'll be dead, I'll pass on my estate to them. It's up to them to decide what to do with it.

On further reflection, I should probably clarify that when I spoke of five or ten year periods of copyright, I was referring specifically to my feelings on the merit of accusations of infringement based on surface similarities such as the one that prompted this thread, and not to the publication of the original story as a whole.

Then what's the point of copyright if you can only be protected for 5 or 10 years? If you can no longer accuse someone of infringement, isn't that the same thing as given up your copyright?

That's silly. Copyright is either protection or it's not. It can't be half way.

Again, two separate issues which have been conflated in this thread.

Accept it's not two separate issues. Either it's protection or it's not. There's not a fuzzy gray area.

 

[RoJoHen]

And now we "rip off" the story during the author's lifetime, AND compensate him for it.
The author gets money for every use of every creation he made. For his entire life. But everyone is allowed to adapt his works. It's a win win situation.

It's only a win win situation if the author is only concerned with money. What if an author is more concerned with the integrity of the original work? What if the author simply doesn't want someone else using his ideas for their own profit? Why shouldn't that be his right?

 

[Professor Zoom]

Should a fireman be paid a bonus for every birthday a child he saved from a burning building subsequently has? Should a mechanic be paid every time an engine he built is resold? Should an accountant be paid every time the records he computed are referred to?

I should address this more specifically.

All of those people are work for hire. They are paid to perform a specific task. They are paid BY SOMEONE ELSE to perform a specific task.

An artist CAN be a work for hire, sure. Like a screenwriter. A screenwriter is paid to do a job, and WELL, because they are also giving up their claims to the copyright. AND, as a worker for hire, they can join a union! And that union has done a good job of secure royalties, etc.

But, to continue using a writer, they aren't doing it as a work for hire. No one is necessarily hiring them to write. They are trying to make a living at it. That business is publishing. A publisher get's a LICENSE from the author to publish it. The publisher pays for the right to publish it, because they hope to make money.

The writer hasn't given up their copyright to the work. They still own their "product." They can license it again, if they can, if they wish.

 

[David cgc]

The quotes of ME that you quoted, you're gonna have to explain how I implied an infinite copyright. ESPECIALLY when in other parts of this thread I have specifically pointed out that I'm FOR A FINITE copyright period.

The explanation you gave for copyright was that it was wrong for a person to profit on something based on another's work. Period. Not a living person's work. Not a recent work. Based off another person's work. No expiration, no statute of limitations.

It's a valid FORM of arguing. I don't see why you're using here. As I have stated through this thread, I believe in a finite copyright period.

As I just said, you and others said there were no conceivable negative consequences to excessive infringement lawsuits. To demonstrate that negative consequences were theoretically possible, I posited a world where copyright extended indefinitely.

Except for the fact there's a LAW. But, don't let facts bother you.

We can borrow and steal and reproduce because it's in the public domain. We can't borrow, steal and reproduce what isn't.

So, yeah, I DO have a moral issue of simple theft. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S IN THE FUCKING LAW.

I am not arguing against the existence of the law in its current form, as I already said to Jan. That would be stupid, and I'd hope you wouldn't waste your time arguing with someone who is stupid. I am arguing against the merit of the law in its current form.

You cannot, I emphasize, cannot say that the merit of the law is proved by the existence of the law. If you are, then we're done, just as I'm done arguing with everyone else who's decided that to defer their right to an opinion on artistic integrity to the U.S. Congress (with consultation from lobbyists from the Walt Disney Company).

Which argument? Your Absurdo reductio?

Yes. We've now established that copyright is not about the wrongness of unoriginality in the abstract, and that circumstances exist where it is acceptable to freely use work originated by another person.

Accept it's not two separate issues. Either it's protection or it's not. There's not a fuzzy gray area.

The issue of whether or not Harlan Ellison makes frivolous infringement claims is the same as the question of when a work should enter the public domain in it's entirety?

 

[Professor Zoom]

Sigh....

The quotes of ME that you quoted, you're gonna have to explain how I implied an infinite copyright. ESPECIALLY when in other parts of this thread I have specifically pointed out that I'm FOR A FINITE copyright period.

The explanation you gave for copyright was that it was wrong for a person to profit on something based on another's work. Period. Not a living person's work. Not a recent work. Based off another person's work. No expiration, no statute of limitations.

So... you pull quotes of me explaining to others what a copyright is and why it's important, IGNORING the other ones where I say copyright should be for a limited duration...

...and I'm supposed to take you seriously on that point... Right.

It's a valid FORM of arguing. I don't see why you're using here. As I have stated through this thread, I believe in a finite copyright period.

As I just said, you and others said there were no conceivable negative consequences to excessive infringement lawsuits. To demonstrate that negative consequences were theoretically possible, I posited a world where copyright extended indefinitely.

I've never said there are no negative consequences. Maybe you FEEL I've implied it... but, since you are so good at reading between the lines... I'm just going to ignore this point.

As far as the second point, AGAIN, I have NEVER said copyright should be infinite or indefinite. On this point, I'm done arguing with you.

I am not arguing against the existence of the law in its current form, as I already said to Jan. That would be stupid, and I'd hope you wouldn't waste your time arguing with someone who is stupid. I am arguing against the merit of the law in its current form.

Great. Fine. I think it's wrong to break a law. Even if I disagree with it. Remember your whole moral argument is gone thing? That's what I'm addressing.

I think it's WRONG to take money out of the pocket of a living author. (I threw in living for you, to make it super clear.)

You cannot, I emphasize, cannot say that the merit of the law is proved by the existence of the law.

I didn't. I saw it was wrong to break the law. That has nothing to do with the "merit" of the law.

And, again, I think it's WRONG to take money out of the pocket of a living author--or artist, or musician, etc..

If you are, then we're done, just as I'm done arguing with everyone else who's decided that to defer their right to an opinion on artistic integrity to the U.S. Congress (with consultation from lobbyists from the Walt Disney Company).

Snore.

Again... as I have said NUMEROUS times now, I don't think copyright should be controlled by a non-living entity, and I don't think it should be infinite, or indefinite.

Since I've said THAT numerous times, I don't feel the need to say it further.

Which argument? Your Absurdo reductio?

Yes. We've now established that copyright is not about the wrongness of unoriginality in the abstract, and that circumstances exist where it is acceptable to freely use work originated by another person.

Infringing copyright is wrong. It's stealing.

Using from the Public Domain is not stealing. Once work enters into the Public Domain, go for it.

Accept it's not two separate issues. Either it's protection or it's not. There's not a fuzzy gray area.

The issue of whether or not Harlan Ellison makes frivolous infringement claims is the same as the question of when a work should enter the public domain in it's entirety?

Now THAT is a separate issue. Frivolous is different. You weren't talking about frivolous cases. You were talking about how long someone would be able to sue for infringement after publication. How about you address THAT? How would that work, you have the copyright for 20 years, but you are only able to sue for 10? What's the extra years mean?

Is Ellison lawsuit happy? I don't know. How many has he brought? How many has he won? How many has he lost? ARE they actually frivolous? In the case of Terminator, doesn't look like it since he WON.

Frivolous is Warner Brothers suing a Bollywood movie company who made a movie called Hari Puttar because it sounds like Harry Potter. That was the basis. Not because it was about a Wizard or magic or anything. THAT is frivolous.

If you want to talk about frivolous talk about frivolous.

 

[David cgc]

So... you pull quotes of me explaining to others what a copyright is and why it's important, IGNORING the other ones where I say copyright should be for a limited duration...

Have we not been posting in the same thread? You implied that derivative works were theft, in perpetuity. I challenged you. You clarified that you didn't actually mean to say that it should be in perpetuity, then you asked where this whole idea that someone said it should be in perpetuity started. You didn't ask that I reiterate the entire conversation, so I didn't include the subsequent bits.

Just so we're clear, I absolutely understand that you respect the concept of public domain. We no longer need to continue revisiting this aspect of the discussion, and further replies of this nature will not be acknowledged. This discussion is becoming ungainly, and this particular circle has gotten too tight to be worth continuing.

...and I'm supposed to take you seriously on that point... Right.

Incidentally, we've now had two posters advocate perpetual copyright explicitly, up from zero. Am I still delusional and arguing with shadows?

I've never said there are no negative consequences. Maybe you FEEL I've implied it... but, since you are so good at reading between the lines... I'm just going to ignore this point.

I disagree. Here's the specific exchange I'm referring to.

I think the problem here isn't that Harlan's mad, it's that he appears to be impeding other creators.

How is stopping someone from ripping you off considered "impeding?" if they are creators, then CREATE.

I don't see how this action impedes other creators.

That certainly looks like you're saying there aren't any negative consequences to this lawsuit. I'll grant however, that you may have just been referring to the specific negative consequences of impeding future artists, and left open the possibility of other negative consequences. I'm not sure what they are, but I acknowledge that you agree that they exist.

Infringing copyright is wrong. It's stealing.

Using from the Public Domain is not stealing. Once work enters into the Public Domain, go for it.

That is not the issue. I have said repeatedly that I do not dispute that. The debate is when works should pass from one area to the other. Invoking the law as it stands is a red herring.

Now THAT is a separate issue. Frivolous is different. You weren't talking about frivolous cases. You were talking about how long someone would be able to sue for infringement after publication. How about you address THAT? How would that work, you have the copyright for 20 years, but you are only able to sue for 10? What's the extra years mean?

Here's what I meant. Let's say the lawsuit goes to trial, in front of a judge or whatever. Now, which argument is more compelling on the face of it? If Harlan Ellison's lawyer says, "Mr. Judge, my client published story X two years ago, and the defendant, wrote script Y which contained several elements that originated in story X one year and eleven months ago, and we believe there's no other way script Y could've contained these elements than being copied from story X directly" or if he says, "Story X was published fifty years ago and has been widely read and referenced since then, and script Y was written two years ago, and we say there is no other route these concepts could've taken to script Y except direct from story X."

I gave my opinion on the likely merit of the case, not whether Ellison would've had the legal standing to sue. Obviously, he does. It would be pointless if you asked if I thought it was legal, since the law exists outside of my judgement.

Is Ellison lawsuit happy? I don't know. How many has he brought? How many has he won? How many has he lost? ARE they actually frivolous? In the case of Terminator, doesn't look like it since he WON.

The studio settled out of court before trial. That's not the same as Ellison winning. In fact, it could be seen as evidence that Ellison didn't think a win was guaranteed, because the payoff from a winning lawsuit would be far greater than accepting the settlement. That probably wasn't the case and he just wanted a quick resolution, but, hey, Cameron claims that he thinks Ellison would've lost if it went to trial. He said, she said situation.

 

[Professor Zoom]

That's the most assholish thing I've ever read. I'm a writer. I've got a couple of books on the market. My creation. My copyright. My profits.

See, now it gets awkward, because you've had to go and make it personal. I can't keep arguing without being rude to you, but I don't like being bullied. Sorry in advance.

Moving on.

Do you want to go through your stories with a fine-toothed comb and tease out all your influences? See who you could've infringed on? Figure out which litigious author's estate might want to get "their share" of what they "contributed" to your work?

It wouldn't go to court, naturally. You'll settle. They always settle, even when the case is wholly without merit, because it's quicker and cheaper than fighting and so, so much cheaper than losing.

How insulted would you be, I wonder, looking at the line on your royalty statement that marked out how much of the children of someone you never met get from the sales of your work in exchange for so graciously allowing you to make use of what they originated, oh, so long ago? Assuming they didn't just require you to withdraw the book from publication altogether, that is.

But there's more to it than that. I've got a family. A wife. Children. Although I still work a day job I have dreams of more than just the regular 9-5 slog. I want to make a living off my books.

A lucrative one. I dream of movie deals and merchandising and being able to provide my family with more than just a living.

That's laudable. It's a shame that someone could take that all away from you because they got there first by filing one little injunction against you. Even the threat of a lawsuit is immensely disruptive.

You really shouldn't dismiss your being at the wrong end of a copyright lawsuit out of hand.



Don't be shitty. You have the first entry in your bibliography right in your signature, you can't exactly claim your oeuvre is wholly free of outside influence.



I'm so sorry that the concept that you can't do one thing in your life and then rest on your laurels while making all the money ever is so offensive to you, just because other people deserve the chance to do one thing then rest on their laurels and make all the money ever, too. Don't worry, I get the feeling that you're about to send my blood-pressure into orbit. Sauce for the goose and all that.



Okay, roll call! How is this most offensive to me? Is it as someone in with an appreciation for history and culture, who's seen vital artifacts destroyed or sequestered by unsympathetic heirs and considers it an act of censorship as brutal as that of any government book-burning?

Is it as an artistic individual with the humility and self-awareness to recognize that I'm the sum of my influences, and that I should be so lucky that anyone in the world would care about something I did enough to have it affect the trajectory of their own output?

Or is it as the son of generations of people stupid enough to be things like doctors and insurance salesmen, a young man who is scrambling for scraps in this crap economy even after getting a much better than decent start from his ancestors' legacy, at the idea that you dream of grown adults a hundred years after you're dead cashing in on your name rather than having to stand on their own two feet?

Yeah, it's the last one.

Along with the infantilization of your inheritors, the implication that they'd be making at least of some of their money by filing injunctions against the future equivalent of authors like you who don't have the resources to defend themselves makes for a perfect storm of arrogance and hypocrisy.


Have we not been posting in the same thread? You implied that derivative works were theft, in perpetuity. I challenged you. You clarified that you didn't actually mean to say that it should be in perpetuity, then you asked where this whole idea that someone said it should be in perpetuity started. You didn't ask that I reiterate the entire conversation, so I didn't include the subsequent bits.

Just so we're clear, I absolutely understand that you respect the concept of public domain. We no longer need to continue revisiting this aspect of the discussion, and further replies of this nature will not be acknowledged. This discussion is becoming ungainly, and this particular circle has gotten too tight to be worth continuing.



Incidentally, we've now had two posters advocate perpetual copyright explicitly, up from zero. Am I still delusional and arguing with shadows?



I disagree. Here's the specific exchange I'm referring to.



That certainly looks like you're saying there aren't any negative consequences to this lawsuit. I'll grant however, that you may have just been referring to the specific negative consequences of impeding future artists, and left open the possibility of other negative consequences. I'm not sure what they are, but I acknowledge that you agree that they exist.



That is not the issue. I have said repeatedly that I do not dispute that. The debate is when works should pass from one area to the other. Invoking the law as it stands is a red herring.

Now THAT is a separate issue. Frivolous is different. You weren't talking about frivolous cases. You were talking about how long someone would be able to sue for infringement after publication. How about you address THAT? How would that work, you have the copyright for 20 years, but you are only able to sue for 10? What's the extra years mean?

Here's what I meant. Let's say the lawsuit goes to trial, in front of a judge or whatever. Now, which argument is more compelling on the face of it? If Harlan Ellison's lawyer says, "Mr. Judge, my client published story X two years ago, and the defendant, wrote script Y which contained several elements that originated in story X one year and eleven months ago, and we believe there's no other way script Y could've contained these elements than being copied from story X directly" or if he says, "Story X was published fifty years ago and has been widely read and referenced since then, and script Y was written two years ago, and we say there is no other route these concepts could've taken to script Y except direct from story X."

I gave my opinion on the likely merit of the case, not whether Ellison would've had the legal standing to sue. Obviously, he does. It would be pointless if you asked if I thought it was legal, since the law exists outside of my judgement.

Is Ellison lawsuit happy? I don't know. How many has he brought? How many has he won? How many has he lost? ARE they actually frivolous? In the case of Terminator, doesn't look like it since he WON.

The studio settled out of court before trial. That's not the same as Ellison winning. In fact, it could be seen as evidence that Ellison didn't think a win was guaranteed, because the payoff from a winning lawsuit would be far greater than accepting the settlement. That probably wasn't the case and he just wanted a quick resolution, but, hey, Cameron claims that he thinks Ellison would've lost if it went to trial. He said, she said situation..

As I said to Admiral James Kirk, infringement lawsuits typically end in settlements, so there's no solid legal declaration of who was in the right.

tl;dr

You know what? We're gonna have to agree to disagree, because I'm getting tired of this argument. And no, it's not because you've won and I can't admit it, I am truly tired of splitting hairs with people who it seems are, for whatever reason, upset with Harlan Ellison.

I know it's time to leave an internet argument when it has turned into walls of text.

I don't care about your arguments. I think you're wrong. We'll have to leave it at that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The studio settled out of court before trial. That's not the same as Ellison winning. In fact, it could be seen as evidence that Ellison didn't think a win was guaranteed, because the payoff from a winning lawsuit would be far greater than accepting the settlement. That probably wasn't the case and he just wanted a quick resolution, but, hey, Cameron claims that he thinks Ellison would've lost if it went to trial. He said, she said situation..

Those situations are usually seen as wins for the claimant because it's the defendant who lacks confidence that they'll prevail in court. Otherwise, why pay anything at all? Cameron can say whatever saves face, but the studio wasn't willing to roll the dice.

It's long been a practice in Hollywood for studios to settle plagiarism lawsuits out of court for fear of having a precedent set that would open the floodgates to many similar suits and potentially cost them a great deal more than the single loss. See Buchwald v. Paramount.