Illegal downloads

[Arrqh]

If Copyright protection had existed in the distant past and without limit, and had successfully been passed along to descendants or sold or whatever, then I suppose the world would be a somewhat different place. But I hardly think that it would mean the end of the world or of culture. In any case, it could not possibly be retroactive, so it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. If copyright had always worked the way you want it to, a significant number of derivative works that we all enjoy and that have brought income to artists would never have existed. What you are essentially saying by supported limitless copyright is that future generations should not be allowed to make derivative works of current art despite the plethora of such works that we enjoy today.

A world of permanent copyright is a world of restriction and stifled creativity. It doesn't help artists, it hurts them.

 

[RJDiogenes]

By forcing them to be creative instead of derivative? It does not compute.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

By forcing them to be creative instead of derivative? It does not compute.

There's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one.

There is no creative work--none--that isn't somehow derivative of others. "There's nothing new under the sun," as they say.

 

[Arrqh]

By forcing them to be creative instead of derivative? It does not compute.

You think works like West Side Story and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead aren't creative?

 

[RJDiogenes]

By forcing them to be creative instead of derivative? It does not compute.

There's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one.

There is no creative work--none--that isn't somehow derivative of others. "There's nothing new under the sun," as they say.

We're not talking about deriving inspiration, we're talking about Copyright violation.

By forcing them to be creative instead of derivative? It does not compute.

You think works like West Side Story and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead aren't creative?

I'm only familiar with West Side Story, and I hardly think it would an actionable violation of Romeo and Juliet, any more than Forbidden Planet would be an actionable violation of The Tempest.

 

[Arrqh]

West Side Story is probably borderline, but regardless of whether it actually is infringement or not it clearly is derivative work and it clearly is creative.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, on the other hand, would almost certainly be in violation. The main character are there in the title and they clearly are creations of Shakespeare. Most of the other characters of Hamlet also appear in the play and some of the dialog comes straight out of Hamlet. It also happens to be one of my favorite plays and is an excellent work, in part because it is derivative.

Public domain exists precisely because our shared cultural heritage resonates with all of us and restricting copyright forever robs our culture of the ability to build upon current works that we all enjoy. And it is extremely important to the creation of important cultural works.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I'm just thinking of how much shit Virgil would be in for The Aeneid.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Without Homer, the "Sword & Sandal" genre might not even exist.

West Side Story is probably borderline, but regardless of whether it actually is infringement or not it clearly is derivative work and it clearly is creative.

As I said, the question isn't whether something derives inspiration, it's whether it violates somebody's Rights.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, on the other hand, would almost certainly be in violation. The main character are there in the title and they clearly are creations of Shakespeare. Most of the other characters of Hamlet also appear in the play and some of the dialog comes straight out of Hamlet. It also happens to be one of my favorite plays and is an excellent work, in part because it is derivative.

In a perfect world, it would be a fan film. One could just as easily say that many excellent, derivative works could be created from currently Copyrighted work-- so why should Copyright exist at all?

Public domain exists precisely because our shared cultural heritage resonates with all of us and restricting copyright forever robs our culture of the ability to build upon current works that we all enjoy. And it is extremely important to the creation of important cultural works.

Ah, cultural socialism. Somebody will really have to explain to me in detail, with examples, how protecting ownership is bad for culture. I can't think of a single reason.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Public domain exists precisely because our shared cultural heritage resonates with all of us and restricting copyright forever robs our culture of the ability to build upon current works that we all enjoy. And it is extremely important to the creation of important cultural works.

Ah, cultural socialism. Somebody will really have to explain to me in detail, with examples, how protecting ownership is bad for culture. I can't think of a single reason.

"Cultural socialism"? Are you kidding me?

This page goes into substantial detail and points to many links regarding the value of the public domain and its power to influence and expand our cultural heritage.

You're viewing it as "protecting ownership" but at the same time failing to see that that ownership is a privilege granted to you, for a limited time, by society. We have a vested interest in promoting artistic expression, including the ability to derive revenue from it. Doing away with copyright entirely is a rather extreme position and few here have advocated that.

What has been advocated are more reasonable copyright terms, a broadening of "fair use" rights, and a bit more sanity in how copyright infringement is handled in legal venues.

I said it earlier in the thread but I'll say it again: all art is derivative. Some things are more derivative than others, of course. Art that may not appear to be derivative is nonetheless informed by what came before--sine qua non.

It's the height of arrogance and hubris to presume that any art you create was done completely in a vacuum with no relation to anything that came before. Do writers not read? Do artists not appreciate the art of others? Do musicians not listen to music? It's an ongoing process of give and take, borrowing and copying, imitation and mimicry.

That's not to suggest everyone should be able to sit down right now, crank out a Harry Potter book, and sell it. As I said, we have an interest in encouraging creators to create, and if everything you do can immediately be lifted by someone else, there's no denying that greatly diminishes the profit motive and has the effect of making art something only the idle rich can afford to create or nurture.

But let's say we establish perpetual copyright. Artists can pass down to their heirs through the centuries the rights to their creative works. This gives them the power to sit on that art forever and deny the public access to it, even if it's already been published. It allows them to achieve the same effect by charging exorbitant royalties. In essence, they are permitted to lock up and restrict elements of the culture. And given that no art is created independently of all other art, this cannot stand. You cannot take inspiration, borrow elements, use tropes, mimic styles--draw on all the culture that came before you--then say, "This is mine, I created it. It will be mine forever and I can do whatever I please with it." If all previous artists had had that same attitude then there would be no culture, just an aristocracy of artist families who can decide at their whim what artworks can be accessed by the masses and under what terms.

I reject this notion on the basis that it has no respect or understanding of how our culture has been built through the centuries. We have a broad and rich culture and it would be a tragedy if it had been stifled by onerous ownership laws. It does a disservice to the public by hampering the expansion of our culture, and it does a disservice to artists by reducing the public domain from which they can draw elements and inspiration.

I don't think more reasonable copyright terms are too much to ask. The definition of "reasonable" will vary from person to person but I happen to think the life of the creator plus 70 years is far too long, and likewise the 95/120 term for corporate-created works.

 

[Jadzia]

I like your post Robert.

I choose the one generation principle for reason that as a copyright over a work expires, it's all new faces who inherit the work as it becomes public. Children aren't responsible for their parent's generation, whether it's the good or the bad. They're responsible for their own generation.

Why should children have to inherit the restrictions and legal bindings relevant to their parents? Their game is over. It's all new people now, who are born innocent. So let them start on a level playing field.

 

[cultcross]

One could just as easily say that many excellent, derivative works could be created from currently Copyrighted work-- so why should Copyright exist at all?

Because living people deserve to be paid for their work - their kids, grandchildren and great grandchildren don't any more than I will keep drawing my mother's teaching salary after she dies.

 

[Arrqh]

In a perfect world, it would be a fan film.

Robert Maxell's post was excellent so I won't retread it... but if you're going to poopoo Tom Stoppard's work, perhaps you should at least make a token effort to familiarize yourself with it.

 

[Sector 7]

Having been a published author, I understand the need for copyright laws. However, once I am dead, the public should be free to use it as inspiration, education, reinterpretation, etc. I shall no longer reap the rewards for it anyway... after all I shall be dead.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, something I need to do is make sure all my work is released into the public domain in a timely manner. I don't have a last will and testament but that's something I should definitely have in there when I do write one.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Public domain exists precisely because our shared cultural heritage resonates with all of us and restricting copyright forever robs our culture of the ability to build upon current works that we all enjoy. And it is extremely important to the creation of important cultural works.

Ah, cultural socialism. Somebody will really have to explain to me in detail, with examples, how protecting ownership is bad for culture. I can't think of a single reason.

"Cultural socialism"? Are you kidding me?

Well, I was... until I read the rest of your Post.

You're viewing it as "protecting ownership" but at the same time failing to see that that ownership is a privilege granted to you, for a limited time, by society.

Not true. If somebody creates something, it belongs to them whether a particular society recognizes that or not.

I said it earlier in the thread but I'll say it again: all art is derivative. Some things are more derivative than others, of course. Art that may not appear to be derivative is nonetheless informed by what came before--sine qua non.

It's the height of arrogance and hubris to presume that any art you create was done completely in a vacuum with no relation to anything that came before. Do writers not read? Do artists not appreciate the art of others? Do musicians not listen to music? It's an ongoing process of give and take, borrowing and copying, imitation and mimicry.

None of which has anything to do with Copyright.

But let's say we establish perpetual copyright. Artists can pass down to their heirs through the centuries the rights to their creative works. This gives them the power to sit on that art forever and deny the public access to it, even if it's already been published. It allows them to achieve the same effect by charging exorbitant royalties.

Yes. They actually have the right to do what they want with their property.

In essence, they are permitted to lock up and restrict elements of the culture. And given that no art is created independently of all other art, this cannot stand. You cannot take inspiration, borrow elements, use tropes, mimic styles--draw on all the culture that came before you--then say, "This is mine, I created it. It will be mine forever and I can do whatever I please with it." If all previous artists had had that same attitude then there would be no culture, just an aristocracy of artist families who can decide at their whim what artworks can be accessed by the masses and under what terms.

Of course there would be culture. How could there possibly not be culture. That's like saying there can't be a city if there's private property.

I reject this notion on the basis that it has no respect or understanding of how our culture has been built through the centuries.

You mean the idea that intellectual property rights were never protected throughout most of Human history?

We have a broad and rich culture and it would be a tragedy if it had been stifled by onerous ownership laws. It does a disservice to the public by hampering the expansion of our culture, and it does a disservice to artists by reducing the public domain from which they can draw elements and inspiration.

Again, it does no such thing. Inspiration and plagiarism are not synonymous.

Why should children have to inherit the restrictions and legal bindings relevant to their parents?

Because that's what civilization is. Would you apply this weird philosophy to any other aspect of life?

Because living people deserve to be paid for their work - their kids, grandchildren and great grandchildren don't any more than I will keep drawing my mother's teaching salary after she dies.

And yet if you inherit her property, you can sell or lease it at your discretion. If she starts a business, you can inherit it and continue to make a profit from it. If she owns stocks or bonds, you can inherit them and continue to make interest and dividends. Or do you think these things should all pass into the Public Domain as well?

Robert Maxell's post was excellent so I won't retread it... but if you're going to poopoo Tom Stoppard's work, perhaps you should at least make a token effort to familiarize yourself with it.

Kinda missing the point there.

Yeah, something I need to do is make sure all my work is released into the public domain in a timely manner. I don't have a last will and testament but that's something I should definitely have in there when I do write one.

And you have the right to do that, as Lovecraft and others have done, since it is your work. But you don't have the right to force others to do it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Intellectual property isn't equivalent to physical property. Period. If it was, it wouldn't need special laws to protect it.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest since you're proceeding from that fundamentally-flawed premise.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Intellectual property isn't equivalent to physical property. Period. If it was, it wouldn't need special laws to protect it.

It shouldn't need special laws to protect it; but it does because it's a lot easier to steal and people take advantage of that. There shouldn't need to be special laws to protect the Rights of women and minorities, either, but you know how that goes.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest since you're proceeding from that fundamentally-flawed premise.

If you say so. But, again, I don't see why products of the mind should be any less valuable than products of the hands.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I'm reminded of Gary Gygax's post-D&D writing, in which the copyright holder (TSR) put itself out of business with legal fees trying to prevent him from ever writing another RPG again.

I'm also reminded of the whole Beatles-Michael Jackson fiasco.

I'm all for artists creating things, respecting boundaries and copyrights, but there is a point at which the Law(tm) can go fuck itself.

 

[Arrqh]

I'm not even going to bother with the rest since you're proceeding from that fundamentally-flawed premise.

If you say so. But, again, I don't see why products of the mind should be any less valuable than products of the hands.

Who said anything about less valuable?

Robert Maxell's post was excellent so I won't retread it... but if you're going to poopoo Tom Stoppard's work, perhaps you should at least make a token effort to familiarize yourself with it.

Kinda missing the point there.

Then by all means, do enlighten me!

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ I wasn't deriding anyone's work, I was pointing out that if it uses Copyrighted material, it would have to be in the same category as a fan film (unless permission was obtained, of course).

Who said anything about less valuable?

If intellectual property is given less protection than physical property, then it is less valuable.