When love is harder to show than hate

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Format C:

It's not at all the same thing.
Copyright and Trade Marks are completely different things.

Actually, they serve similar purposes. But he's not talking about trade marks, or even patents, but ownership of the business (stocks, etc.).

Originally Posted by Format C:

But, tell me, please.
When the carpenter dies after the billionth table hand made by him, what happens to his heirs?
Why should a writer be someway "superior" to a carpenter?
Does he belong to a superior race? or is the other less than human?

Because most carpentry designs are not copyrightable. Take it up with Congress. If he designs ship hulls, those ARE copyrightable. But a particular design of a chair or table? No. Such items are generally seen as commodities, and the carpenter transacts for full payment with each one sold. Most carpenters are being paid primarily for their LABOR, not their creativity. They get paid fully for their time with each item sold.

For an author, this is not the case. They're not making every book by hand and getting paid for their labor and materials in making that book; the publisher is. The author is getting paid for designing what words go into that book. That's what give the book it's primary value, not the pages and ink.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I must respectfully disagree that it's a "red herring". The article quoted seemed to me to be criticising the estate of Mr. Herbert for "going after" fan sites which violated the late Mr. Herbert's copyrights. I am saying that being a "fan" does not give you any greater right than anybody else has to break copyright law, and that it is, therefore, wrong to criticise the copyright holder for exercising their perfectly legitimate right to protect their intellectual property.

Doctorow criticizes this action on the basis that it is counter to the interests of the copyright holder and corrosive to social discourse. The topic is the impact of current copyright law and the possibility of granting tribute the same status afforded to parody. The question of "fans' rights" is a strawman that you introduced to the discussion.

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Also, while this isn't true in the case of Dune, allowing such creations indeed *can* take money out of the pockets of the copyright holders. Consider, for example, PernMUSH, which is allowed to operate by special permission of Anne McCaffery. Now, suppose some compnay wants to make a Pern MMOG with a heavy RP emphasis... the existance of a free PernMUSH is a direct competition to them. So in such a case McCaffery may indeed want to shut down the fan-made version.

But it gets worse, in that you can't necessarily just assume to let the fan-made version run until such an offer comes along. If you let it run over time, it builds up its own base of loyal users. Shutting down a long-running RP world would create more negative feelings than if it had simply never been allowed to exist. A company looking to do an MMOG may just decide it's not worth the effort to try a Pern one since PernMUSH is already out there, even if McCaffery were willing to shut it down.

A reasonable argument, but it doesn't stand up. Any investor who sees the existence of a readymade market as a bad sign will never make a dime, and any software developer who sees an ad hoc chat game as competition I wouldn't trust to program a VCR. If you cannot exceed, in a for-profit venture, the standards set by people building on the author's work FOR FUN, then hire them or buy them out (which is precisely what smart companies do).

If fan works compete with the copyright holder in any way, they do so at an absurd disadvantage, and are generally open to influence well short of legal action.

Originally Posted by sirbruce

And times change. 25 years ago, allowing a text of a book on the Internet wouldn't have cost an author anything. But now that ebooks are hot, and those rights are worth something, the pre-existance of a full copy of the book on the Internet that was previously allowed now makes the ebook rights to that book virtually worthless.

False. You can find nearly complete bodies of work for, at the very least, dozens of authors being traded freely in torrents. Take Frank Herbert for example--Dune has probably been available on the intenet for as long as there's been an internet. Now, go to Amazon, Fictionwise, or Diesel and search for Dune. Do you think they got that book for free?

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by taosaur

A reasonable argument, but it doesn't stand up. Any investor who sees the existence of a readymade market as a bad sign will never make a dime, and any software developer who sees an ad hoc chat game as competition I wouldn't trust to program a VCR. If you cannot exceed, in a for-profit venture, the standards set by people building on the author's work FOR FUN, then hire them or buy them out (which is precisely what smart companies do).

The fact you don't think it's a good business decision is *irrelevant*. The standard is if one can reasonably expect such a decision so that financial impact is indeed possible. The fact that we can reasonably expect investors to act in ways which we may not find logical doesn't change that. Investors all the time avoid markets that are already exploited in preference for lower-hanging fruit.

Originally Posted by taosaur

False. You can find nearly complete bodies of work for, at the very least, dozens of authors being traded freely in torrents. Take Frank Herbert for example--Dune has probably been available on the intenet for as long as there's been an internet. Now, go to Amazon, Fictionwise, or Diesel and search for Dune. Do you think they got that book for free?

Invalid comparison. We're not talking about pirated ebooks vs. regular ebooks, we're talking about voluntarily allowing free, freely redistributable ebooks vs. later selling the same content. Yes, you CAN still try to sell the latter for money, and sometimes even succeed, but the value is still diminished.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

The fact you don't think it's a good business decision is *irrelevant*. The standard is if one can reasonably expect such a decision so that financial impact is indeed possible. The fact that we can reasonably expect investors to act in ways which we may not find logical doesn't change that. Investors all the time avoid markets that are already exploited in preference for lower-hanging fruit.

I see. Your assessment of PernMUSH is relevant while mine of Dune in SL is not. You may have noticed we're in a forum here, discussing our views. Some investors and copyright holders have acted in accordance with your viewpoint, others in accordance with mine. I was under the impression we were expanding on the rational basis of each viewpoint and debating the relative merits.

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Invalid comparison. We're not talking about pirated ebooks vs. regular ebooks, we're talking about voluntarily allowing free, freely redistributable ebooks vs. later selling the same content. Yes, you CAN still try to sell the latter for money, and sometimes even succeed, but the value is still diminished.

And your initial comparison was irrelevant, in that copying a novel directly from paper to pixels is not a derivative work, but a copy, presumably identical to what the copyright holder could produce. Tribute works in no way preclude or devalue the copyright holder's efforts in the same domain, and indeed can serve as stepping stones into new ventures for copyright holders who forge working relationships with them or acquire them outright.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by taosaur

I see. Your assessment of PernMUSH is relevant while mine of Dune in SL is not.

I never said that... I was saying your point about whether or not you thought it was a good business decision was irrelevant to whether or not it had a financial impact.

Originally Posted by taosaur

You may have noticed we're in a forum here, discussing our views. Some investors and copyright holders have acted in accordance with your viewpoint, others in accordance with mine. I was under the impression we were expanding on the rational basis of each viewpoint and debating the relative merits.

Oh, sure, and I freely admit your viewpoint has merits. You seemed to be denying the FACT that such fan works can have a financial impact, and claiming so because it would be a bad decision for investors act in a certain way. All I was saying was even if you disagreed with their decision, if they still act that way, it's still a financial impact. So as long as you agree there's a financial impact, then we're good. You simply believe there are other merits to your position which outweight that fact.

Originally Posted by taosaur

And your initial comparison was irrelevant, in that copying a novel directly from paper to pixels is not a derivative work, but a copy, presumably identical to what the copyright holder could produce. Tribute works in no way preclude or devalue the copyright holder's efforts in the same domain, and indeed can serve as stepping stones into new ventures for copyright holders who forge working relationships with them or acquire them outright.

It's relevant because the analogy was of a derivative work that does not seem to have a financial impact now vs. having such an impact later; just as an ebook copy could. Beyond that, I agree that derivative works and ebooks are different things; I was simply illustrating the point. Tribute works can indeed preclude and devalue the copyright holder's efforts in the same domain; that does not mean it cannot also serve as a stepping stone, or that sometimes the other merits of tribute works do not outweigh the downsides from a financial point of view.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Tribute works can indeed preclude and devalue the copyright holder's efforts in the same domain; that does not mean it cannot also serve as a stepping stone, or that sometimes the other merits of tribute works do not outweigh the downsides from a financial point of view.

The only situation I can see where pre-existing tribute work would pose any threat to new "official" work in the same medium is if the new work does not meet the standards of quality established by the tribute, which is inexcusable on the part of the copyright holder. They have every advantage: the simple stamp of authenticity, the capital, the promotional machinery, and very likely the original tribute material and the efforts of those who produced it, if they only ask for it.

I agree with you, though, that the best approach is to assess it on a case-by-case basis. If your creative empire is so large that you cannot hope to do so, then I wish I had your problems

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With respect, it's not that simple.

If you "turn a blind eye" to "derivative works" from fans, that gives other less scrupulous people a precident to claim that you have previously permitted such works, hence their derivative work, sold for profit, is "OK". Copyright holders have to be very careful about such things.

No, they don't. Trademark holders have to enforce their ownership; if they fail to do so, the mark becomes public. Copyright owners face no such restrictions--they can allow free fan works galore, and still go after anyone who tries to make a profit. Or they can allow sci-fi conventions to sell copies of their works for $5, and still go after rival publishing houses that try to do the same thing.

Copyright isn't a "use it or lose it" situation--copyright gives one the right to choose what copies to allow. There's no "but he's already doing it" exception with copyright. (Nor is there, "they prosecuted the last 40 people who gave away a copy, so we must assume they'll file suit about this one." Which is why the DMCA requires specific complaints rather than allowing copyright holders to file a "no copies allowed" statement somewhere.)