Fair Use?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

That's not entirely true. If all I wanted to do was say use a magical sorting hat to divide up students I'd probably be facing a lawsuit. Haryr potter added to the culture, I don't want to remake it but i might want to make use of some bits. Niven's ringworld is a wonderful playground it has been years why not let other people play there freely? For that matter how would Ms Rowling be harmed if someone wrote a story about Dumbledore's first day at hogwarts? One would assume she could do the same and outsell the competition and if she couldn't why wouldthere still not be room for both?

There is room in the world for such things: "fan fiction". Although technically a breach of copyright, most authors, Ms. Rowling included, turn a blind eye to it. It's only when people try to abuse it (eg by trying to sell it commercially) that the law gets involved.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the very greatest respect, Moejoe, it is not a "fabrication". It is entirely true to say that the commercial content which is currently available for unauthorised download would not have been released had there not been a commercial market for it, and that the only reason that it can be downloaded is because it has been released for commercial sale. People who download it without paying for it are only able to do so on the backs of those who have paid for it. If nobody paid for that content, it would not exist.

You may well argue that this is an unsustainable economic model, but it is the model that exists at the present time, and it is an undeniable fact that the people who are popularly called "pirates" (I call them something different, as do you) are taking advantage of those who buy that content.

A couple months ago an interesting movie appeared on the torrent sites along with a small video from the director saying go ahead and share away. There's probably far more market now than there was before for this little indie film out of Iran of all places. The production quality was decent enough, especially considering the budget. The story was good. Yes someone paid to make it, they wanted it made, it wasn't just buisness. Clearly people WANT to create even in the absence of financial motive.

The Movie by the way was called No One Knows About Persian Cats, about some 20-something's trying to form an indie rock group in Tehran.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

A couple months ago an interesting movie appeared on the torrent sites along with a small video from the director saying go ahead and share away. There's probably far more market now than there was before for this little indie film out of Iran of all places. The production quality was decent enough, especially considering the budget. The story was good. Yes someone paid to make it, they wanted it made, it wasn't just buisness. Clearly people WANT to create even in the absence of financial motive.

The Movie by the way was called No One Knows About Persian Cats, about some 20-something's trying to form an indie rock group in Tehran.

Cool, I hadn't heard of that one. I will immediately torrent that movie (becuase you can bet I won't be torrenting the bloody A-Team remake. )

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The big mistake you make is to think that pirates don't pay for products, and it's the same mistake I hear again and again from the uninformed. Read just one or two .nfo's and you know what you'll see? It won't be 'ha-ha-ha' we get this shit for free. This is what you'll see:

Please pay for the full product (or words to that affect).

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you're saying. A pirated product, by definition is one that has not been paid for. It's all very well to say "Please pay for the full product" in an nfo file, but the fact remains that the person who downloaded it hasn't done so, and in all probability isn't going to do so. Is a line in the nfo file going to make them feel guilty and go out and pay? I don't think so.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There is room in the world for such things: "fan fiction". Although technically a breach of copyright, most authors, Ms. Rowling included, turn a blind eye to it. It's only when people try to abuse it (eg by trying to sell it commercially) that the law gets involved.

Turning a blind eye is not the same as having no power to stop. Just becuse there is no takedown notice sent for someone's youtube speed run of a video game doesn't mean there can't be one, don't mean that soon there won't be one. All it takes is some completely control freak to go after something mildly infringing but completely innocent and non commerical. I don't have faith in the media companies playing nice.

Fanfic can be good stuff. Pride and Prejudice and zombies is fan fiction. Read this list of derivative works http://bookshop.livejournal.com/1044495.html (found via boingboing)

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you're saying. A pirated product, by definition is one that has not been paid for. It's all very well to say "Please pay for the full product" in an nfo file, but the fact remains that the person who downloaded it hasn't done so, and in all probability isn't going to do so. Is a line in the nfo file going to make them feel guilty and go out and pay? I don't think so.

Where do you think the files originate from? Someone has to purchase a product to pirate that product (and they would anyway, especially the big groups). If anything, piracy (or sharing as it should be called because that other word is loaded, incorrect and sloppy) is responsible for building interest. It's free advertising. This isn't a chicken and egg situation. There's lots of chickens and lots of eggs and a lot of people are buying both.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Where do you think the files originate from? Someone has to purchase a product to pirate that product (and they would anyway, especially the big groups). If anything, piracy (or sharing as it should be called because that other word is loaded, incorrect and sloppy) is responsible for building interest. It's free advertising. This isn't a chicken and egg situation. There's lots of chickens and lots of eggs and a lot of people are buying both.

We obviously hold different viewpoints on this matter, and neither of us is going to persuade the other that they are wrong. I suggest that we simply acknowledge that our views do differ.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Fanfic can be good stuff. Pride and Prejudice and zombies is fan fiction.

That's a somewhat different case, in that the source material is in the public domain. There have been some "derivative works" which have become classics in their own right, of course - one good example is Jean Rhys' "Wide Sargasso Sea", a "prequel" to "Jane Eyre".

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We obviously hold different viewpoints on this matter, and neither of us is going to persuade the other that they are wrong. I suggest that we simply acknowledge that our views do differ.

Of course, of course, and I hold no ill will. It's an internet argument and the internet would be no fun if everyone got along or wasn't allowed to share their thoughts with each other

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's a somewhat different case, in that the source material is in the public domain. There have been some "derivative works" which have become classics in their own right, of course - one good example is Jean Rhys' "Wide Sargasso Sea", a "prequel" to "Jane Eyre".

If you failed to notice I've been advocating to anyone who'll listen for a shorter copyright term but even so, if you honestly think fanfic or fan art or fan music or fan sculpture is really a threat to commercial success if sold are you really against giving some legal freedom to the non commercial stuff so they don't need to rely on the good graces of media companies.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

If you failed to notice I've been advocating to anyone who'll listen for a shorter copyright term but even so, if you honestly think fanfic or fan art or fan music or fan sculpture is really a threat to commercial success if sold are you really against giving some legal freedom to the non commercial stuff so they don't need to rely on the good graces of media companies.

Let me say, by the way, that I too am very much of favour of significantly shorter copyright terms.

The questions you raise are interesting ones, and have no simple answer. Let's consider the case of "Wide Sargasso Sea" in a little more detail. It is, as I'm sure you know, the story of "The Mad Woman in the Attic" from Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre". Generations of readers of Jane Eyre have wanted to know more about her, and "Wide Sargasso Sea" was probably only a success because of the success of Jane Eyre.

We could ask whether it would have been legitimate for another author to write such a novel in Charlotte Brontë's lifetime. Personally I'd say "no", because it would have removed Brontë's right as an author to tell that story herself, and I think that every author has the right to "control" the characters that they create.

That's the argument against fan fiction: that it removes from the author the right to tell their characters' stories. Does it matter, in reality, if the author has no intention of telling those stories themselves? Probably not, which is why most authors turn a blind eye to it. Should other authors be allowed to tell those stories for commercial gain? I don't know the answer to that.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Let me say, by the way, that I too am very much of favour of significantly shorter copyright terms.

The questions you raise are interesting ones, and have no simple answer. Let's consider the case of "Wide Sargasso Sea" in a little more detail. It is, as I'm sure you know, the story of "The Mad Woman in the Attic" from Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre". Generations of readers of Jane Eyre have wanted to know more about her, and "Wide Sargasso Sea" was probably only a success because of the success of Jane Eyre.

We could ask whether it would have been legitimate for another author to write such a novel in Charlotte Brontë's lifetime. Personally I'd say "no", because it would have removed Brontë's right as an author to tell that story herself, and I think that every author has the right to "control" the characters that they create.

That's the argument against fan fiction: that it removes from the author the right to tell their characters' stories. Does it matter, in reality, if the author has no intention of telling those stories themselves? Probably not, which is why most authors turn a blind eye to it. Should other authors be allowed to tell those stories for commercial gain? I don't know the answer to that.

How does it remove the right? I'm not personally familiar with The Mad Woman in the Attic but what would have prevented Bronte from writing her own story in the same timeframe with the same characters? At worst it'd have left it up to a free market to decide which cannon they preferred. I think it would increase the market for both, people could discuss the different takes in their book club meetings, a third person could do a mashup of the two. Rival fandoms could delicate themselves to expanding on their favorite.

To me that sounds like progress of science and the useful arts. To deny it is censorship. Time limited censorship and not without some justification but still enough to make me really uncomfortable. So the question would be does financial interest or even personal interest trump free expression. Satire is already protected, education and criticism are protected. Requiring that non commercial fanfic be considered fair use really only threatens control.

[GeoffC]

Making money out of the arts ..... This is worth $1.2million .... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8749106.stm

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why would that be a good thing? I don't know what you do for a living, but whatever it is, do you do give it away for free, or do you expect to be paid for it? There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing to make a living; it's what many of the greatest writers in the field of English literature have done.

Because anything that is created for financial gain caters for the lowest common denominator in order to maximise profit. What you end up with is very bland. That goes for music and film as well as books.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I imagine the same is true for most creative people. I used to make a reasonable living from writing and selling my own software, but I know that my return from doing so was way, way under the "minimum wage".

And now you do something else because you can make more money doing that? There still seems to be lots of people who write software for free, so the lack of opportunity to make vast profits from it doesn't seem to put people off.