Why public domain

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by leebase

The public has no more claim on Mickey Mouse than they do over somebodies family farm that’s been handed down for generations.

This is different than patents because there is only so many ways to make Aspirin. Giving a time limited patent after which point all of society gets to benefit allows progress.

I see no such valid time limitation for fiction. There are endless ways to create a story.

Saying that there are endless ways to create a story does not make it so. Given that I've read *two* independently created stories where, due to stringently interpreted and enforced perpetual copyright, creators discover that they've run out of new ideas (one was about music the other about stories)...

As for Disney it can be argued that it has benefited from public domain so it should contribute to public domain. For example I am not upset that Disney was not required to pay the heirs of Hans Christian Anderson to make The Little Mermaid since the story was out of copyright but I do think that it's fair that the film also enter the public domain as time passes.

As someone who has not inherited the family farm, I'm touched that you think that there are still family farms being handed down for generations. BTW in Canada there was an attempt to keep dairy farms as family farms in the 1970's by introducing a new intangible property* that controlled who could produce and sell milk called Milk Quota. Current copyright laws are a much less contentious issue.


*Property being simply defined as something that can be bought and sold.

[leebase]

The fact that Disney has made use of public domain is irrelevant. We aren’t arguing about how to change the past.

That none of Disney’s content is public domain, yet is. Nobody has been able to copy Disney stories or characters and yet there is no end to non-Disney characters and stories that have been and are being created.

Anyone can copy and use the original PD sources that Disney used. But “nobody” wants that. There is no market demand for generic Snow White. Nobody wants to write Handsel and Grettle fan fic. People want to use, copy and play in the economicly active properties of Disney, Twilight, Harry Potter, Star Wars and the like.

The only reason these properties have current value is via the ongoing current investment the rights holders are plowing into them. That’s why a Harry Potter book is likely to outsell any generic boy-wizard book.

The value belongs to the creator, not the public. The public receives it's value in having creators creating.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

Let it be noted - all property rights are a social construct. And across societies and time have been treated quite differently.

The qualities of IP are no more or less intrinsic than any other type of property.

Pretty much all laws are social constructs. A successful law is a law that most people are going to obey. An unsuccessful law is one that people tend to ignore unless a cop is standing right there (and sometimes they ignore it then). Laws about jay walking and speeding are examples in the US about laws that get ignored quite a bit.

For the most part, physical property laws are obeyed by most people. You can leave your car unlocked in the driveway and odds are pretty good that unless you live in a high crime area, no one is going to bother it.

Copyright on the other hand, isn't treated the same way by the general public. Until fairly recently, copyright was protected as much because of the cost of equipment to print books, or make records as anything else. In the music industry, the advent of the cassette tape and tape recorder started wide spread trading of music, especially among teenagers. As long as people didn't try to sale the music, it is almost impossible to stop and the music industry pretty much stopped trying after the fiasco of suing grandma because the 10 year old grand daughter was downloading music. The whole idea that music is copyrighted and that copyright must be respected has had very little traction with the general public. That's a big reason why music is now DRM free and why the music industry has moved to a different business model. With all the streaming options, people use that rather than make cd's or playlist.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by gmw

My OED offers the following pre-Statute of Anne quotes for collateral (sense 5. Law):

Although I must admit when I wrote that last post I was thinking of less formal use of the concept ("he's good for it" sort of thing).

Of course, you are right that those types of rights are underwritten by tangible things, but once you introduce rights in place of the real thing thing you begin to introduce interesting complications. eg: if everyone wants their irrigation water at the same time (which is quite common) then you run into capacity issues. This sort of thing gets people playing fast and loose with timing and other details and we end up with something akin to Pratchett's "pork futures" (well, not really, but hopefully you get what I mean).

I see those early rights not as the same thing as IP rights, but as a necessary lead up to the possibilities of intangibles.

History is full of cases where money lenders are unable to collect from nobles. Maybe someone would be willing to accept the right to hunt deer as collateral, but trying to enforce that right is a very different matter.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

The fact that Disney has made use of public domain is irrelevant. We aren’t arguing about how to change the past.

That none of Disney’s content is public domain, yet is. Nobody has been able to copy Disney stories or characters and yet there is no end to non-Disney characters and stories that have been and are being created.

Anyone can copy and use the original PD sources that Disney used. But “nobody” wants that. There is no market demand for generic Snow White. Nobody wants to write Handsel and Grettle fan fic. People want to use, copy and play in the economicly active properties of Disney, Twilight, Harry Potter, Star Wars and the like.

The only reason these properties have current value is via the ongoing current investment the rights holders are plowing into them. That’s why a Harry Potter book is likely to outsell any generic boy-wizard book.

The value belongs to the creator, not the public. The public receives it's value in having creators creating.

This is, of course, factually incorrect. Authors still use the old fairy stories as the basis for new works. Mercedes Lackey has a series of books based on old fairy stories as does Jim Hines as do quite a few others. It's not just Disney that does Snow White these days and everyone wants to copy them. That's the problem with your narrative that you are unwilling to acknowledge. Even if we are just looking at movies, there are some 23 Snow White movies according to IMDB.

I do find it interesting that rather than actually address any of the issues people point to with your assertion, you simply keep making the same assertion over and over. The fact that Snow White is based on a PD work is very much to the point. Most creative work is inspired by someone else's work. Most writers acknowledge this.

The idea of wizard's schools have been around for a long while, though in general, the older stories go with the apprentice approach that was used instead of schools for much of history. Mercedes Lackey used various magic schools in her stories well before Harry Potter every came out. For the most part, the value of a creative work comes from how the work is put together.

If we were talking about pure copyright, i.e. the right to copy a specific work, the question likely would not be as contentious. It's the extension of copyright to ideas and characters that is the real issue, at least in my mind.

[leebase]

You seem to NOT understand hyperbole. It's extremely tiresome to wrap every statement with 5 paragraphs of exceptions. Of course people are still rewriting Shakespere and the like.

The relevant point is that nobody HAS to right in Shakespeare's universe. There are unlimited ways of telling "boy and girl from warring familes fall in love".

Copyright applies to specific works, not generic concepts. Harry Potter....no no. Boy wizard? Go right ahead. Muggles? No no. Non magical people in a magical world? Go right ahead. Dracula? Sure, it predates copyright. Braham Stoker's Drakula? Nay nay.

If someone is advocating that copyright should cover "ideas/concepts" - (like, say, faster than light travel)? Then count me in the "nay nay" crowd.

Everyone should be able to write stories with Captain Kirk and the USS Enterprise? Nay nay. Never never. Not without the right holder's agreement.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

You seem to NOT understand hyperbole. It's extremely tiresome to wrap every statement with 5 paragraphs of exceptions. Of course people are still rewriting Shakespere and the like.

The relevant point is that nobody HAS to right in Shakespeare's universe. There are unlimited ways of telling "boy and girl from warring familes fall in love".

Copyright applies to specific works, not generic concepts. Harry Potter....no no. Boy wizard? Go right ahead. Muggles? No no. Non magical people in a magical world? Go right ahead. Dracula? Sure, it predates copyright. Braham Stoker's Drakula? Nay nay.

If someone is advocating that copyright should cover "ideas/concepts" - (like, say, faster than light travel)? Then count me in the "nay nay" crowd.

Everyone should be able to write stories with Captain Kirk and the USS Enterprise? Nay nay. Never never. Not without the right holder's agreement.

So you are saying that the Aeneid should have never been written since it was written in the Homer universe and uses characters from the universe? There is a logical inconsistency in your position. You say that it's ok to use Dracula since that predates copyright (technically it doesn't, it was published in 1897 so the copyright expired in 1938 I think [42 years for works published before 1912]), but not ok to use Captain Kirk, now and forever, even though the law when Star Trek was made was 28+28 years, i.e. by the laws when it was made, it ought to go into public domain in a couple of years.

Why is it ok that Dracula went into PD but you think Star Trek never should?


Just as aside here is a link to the copyright settlement between the various companies that own the copyrights to Star Trek and a fan who was trying to make a Star Trek fanFlick.

https://qz.com/963942/star-treks-uni...s-gone-before/

[leebase]

I can’t change the past. Just because there was a time before IP doesn’t mean I wish to return to that state.

You can write a space opera without Klingons and Vulcans.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by leebase

You seem to NOT understand hyperbole. It's extremely tiresome to wrap every statement with 5 paragraphs of exceptions. Of course people are still rewriting Shakespere and the like.

The relevant point is that nobody HAS to right in Shakespeare's universe. There are unlimited ways of telling "boy and girl from warring familes fall in love".

Copyright applies to specific works, not generic concepts. Harry Potter....no no. Boy wizard? Go right ahead. Muggles? No no. Non magical people in a magical world? Go right ahead. Dracula? Sure, it predates copyright. Braham Stoker's Drakula? Nay nay.

If someone is advocating that copyright should cover "ideas/concepts" - (like, say, faster than light travel)? Then count me in the "nay nay" crowd.

Everyone should be able to write stories with Captain Kirk and the USS Enterprise? Nay nay. Never never. Not without the right holder's agreement.

Originally Posted by leebase

I can’t change the past. Just because there was a time before IP doesn’t mean I wish to return to that state.

You can write a space opera without Klingons and Vulcans.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by leebase

I’ve already given my thoughts on this...over and over...previously in the thread. I stopped because even I do eventually cease repeating myself.

There are differences between PP and IP of course. Else we wouldn’t have two different terms. But the “property” part is the same and thus I see no reason, for fiction, that there is a time limit to ownership. It’s an opinion, not an interpretation of any given actual law.

I limit this continuation of ownership to those active economic IP. Abandoned fiction should fall into the public domain. Ongoing economic properties should remain with the rights holder.

The public has no more claim on Mickey Mouse than they do over somebodies family farm that’s been handed down for generations.

This is different than patents because there is only so many ways to make Aspirin. Giving a time limited patent after which point all of society gets to benefit allows progress.

I see no such valid time limitation for fiction. There are endless ways to create a story.

For the sake of debate I will grant you that.

So if we are treating IP the same as PP why should I not be allowed to copy your IP? I am allowed to copy your PP after all?

ETA: You seem to want to apply all the positives of PP to IP and remove all the negatives that go with it. While this is completely understandable from a selfish human nature point of view, I don't think there is much rationale for it besides an attitude of "gimme gimme gimme" that you accuse others of.

[MarjaE]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

How did you lose me? You said early works and later works of the same author should have different terms for copyright, because the early works, decades earlier, are sooner no longer making money. And I said both needs to be treated the same. No matter if the one is decades older than the other.

For example GRRM. He writes his first book when he is young, and it takes him literally decades until he finishes the series. You cannot have the first book expiring before the last is even written.

Why not?

It should receive the same life+whatever copyright. The whatever will depend on where in the world you are looking if you want different terms in different countries.

life + negative number creates all kinds of implementation problems.

life + 0 or + positive number can be far too long.

Life + x in general creates all kinds of implementation problems. If the author dies young, for whatever reason, their works would enter the public domain sooner than if they don't. If the idea is to compensate the authors and their families for their work, that seems backwards. If the author is unidentified, or obscure enough, or uses a pen name while remaining anonymous, or a collective of outhors use a pen name, it can be hard to figure out when the works would enter the public domain.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

I can’t change the past. Just because there was a time before IP doesn’t mean I wish to return to that state.

You can write a space opera without Klingons and Vulcans.

Many changes to copyright law have been retroactive. Works have gone into PD, then been removed from PD when the law was changed.

You keep throwing out that red herring of "you can write X without using Y". So what? You can write a book without using English, does that imply that no book should be written in English? You can't write a space opera without having ships in space. Where do you draw the line? Are Warp Drives off limit? Oh, wait, warp drive was first introduced by John H Campbell in a 1931 novel. Hum, 1931 + 28 +28. Yep, that would have still been in copyright when Star Trek came out. Whoops. Or does that come under can't change the past?

It's basically impossible to write a totally new work. All works are based on previous works that the author read at some point. You try to draw the line to protect Disney and Harry Potter, but both Disney (and the various Disney employees who did much of the work) and Rowlings used characters and ideas from other works. I know that you dismiss that as something that doesn't support your personal belief and therefore is beside the point, but that fact is the main point behind public domain. Both created amazing works because they built on top of other works. Yes, they both have/had incredible talent and imagine, but they still built on top of others.

The advantage of public domain isn't that someone can write a whole new story in the Harry Potter universe, it's that someone can take an element from Harry Potter, put their own twist on it and include it in their work. It precludes someone like Harlan Ellison and the whole patent troll industry from suing to get a piece of someone else's pie.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by gmw

The Star Trek thing is pretty easy: they have no money so the rights (to physical property or intellectual property) become a redundancy. IP has only been defined as such in order to encourage more IP by supporting exploitation. With no money to use as incentive, they will have to find some other means. Reputation, perhaps? This phaser was brought to you by ....

The problem with trying to mimic a $1000 bottle of wine is that it is self defeating. Typically a significant proportion of the price of a $1000 bottle of wine comes from its rarity value. If it is no longer rare the price will drop and your $20 wine will be a mimic of a $20 bottle of wine.

And yes, being cheap to reproduce is a real and relevant difference between IP and most other sorts of property (tangible and non-tangible) - for now, anyway. IP can be consumed without being used up. In theory this lack of scarcity should prevent it from being treated as a property, but in practice it hasn't turned out that way - or not so far.

It's rather circular, but I think IP is able to be treated as a property because it has been treated as property. Originally this was partly supported by the fact that reproduction of IP met with scarce resources (paper and time etc.), but having established itself as property IP is not moving over just because we found cheaper ways to reproduce it.

In the late Start trek universe, is seems to me they had some form of money - I think was called bar lathium. (Pardon my memory, I'm not a Trekkie.)

Your point about IP being consumed without being used up is very important. It marks the critical difference between IP and PP. PP has value because it is consumed with it being used up. Should that fact not be a reason for treating IP differently from PP?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Greg Anos

In the late Start trek universe, is seems to me they had some form of money - I think was called bar lathium. (Pardon my memory, I'm not a Trekkie.)

You are thinking of Gold Pressed Latinum. A currency used primarily by the Ferengi Alliance.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Greg Anos

In the late Start trek universe, is seems to me they had some form of money - I think was called bar lathium. (Pardon my memory, I'm not a Trekkie.)

Your point about IP being consumed without being used up is very important. It marks the critical difference between IP and PP. PP has value because it is consumed with it being used up. Should that fact not be a reason for treating IP differently from PP?

I'm a fan but not a Trekkie, so did a search and assumed this page was good enough as a reference.

It might be a reason for not treating IP as a property at all, but only once we understand how it fails to self-annihilate due to the paradox of successfully behaving like a property for the last couple of centuries.