Public Domain

[leebase]

Fanfic is copyright violation. I never see a good reason for fanfic unless an author agrees to it. The fact that fanfict can be enjoyable is precisely why we have copyright. The author/rights holder deserves the control and the money.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

Fanfic is copyright violation. I never see a good reason for fanfic unless an author agrees to it. The fact that fanfict can be enjoyable is precisely why we have copyright. The author/rights holder deserves the control and the money.

Why? You keep asserting that, but why should the author control whether or not someone writes something based on their work? One thing that I've noticed is that when someone simply keeps repeating an assertion, it's likely that it's an unexamined assertion. Is J.K. Rowling harmed by fanflic or for that matter anyone writing in the Harry Potter world?

The Flashman series was based on a character from Tom Brown's school days. In your vision of eternal copy write, that series is never written. Would society be better or worse? You can assert that the author could have just changed the name, but much of the humor is based on the history of that character. Was Thomas Hughes' (who died in 1896) spirit harmed by Fraser writing these books in 1969?

I point again to Moby Dick. Every literate person of the time period knows who Ismael is in the Bible, knows who Ahab is in the Bible. The use of those names sets a mood with the reader without having to spell it out.

You dismiss fanflic, possibly because you see no real societal purpose, but fanflic exists for a purpose. People who may not be up to writing the next great American novel, are able to exercise their creative juices by writing it. I would not be incredibly shocked if some of the better known fanfic writers have more readers than a majority of published writers. Is that bad? If so, why?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ekbell

...
For every C. S. Lewis or Tolkien, for every Mickey Mouse there's hundreds if not thousands of enjoyable works that didn't provide enough of a pay out to stay in print. [and the experience of the US shows that allowing renewable copyright just confuses the issue]

The disappearing works is the great tragedy of the long copyright period. There are books that I read 40 years ago which likely now have zero commercial value. I see no benefit to society for those works to disappear.

There are of course, easy solutions to the problem. Heck, just make copyright contingent on renewing it every X years after the initial 28 years. That way, authors or rights holders who want to keep the rights can, and those who become orphaned or who no longer wish to maintain the right can go into public domain. I would go with 1 year, but perhaps that's not practical. As long as it's every few years you get the same effect. The vast majority of books would go into public domain after the initial 28 years since the vast majority of books earn most of their money within a few months of the initial publication.

But as I said before, it won't happen because there is no one who is looking to reform copyright, only copyright holders who are looking to extend those rights forever.

[curtw]

Originally Posted by leebase

Come on. There can be wizards and schools without it being Harry Potter. I’m completely ok with Rawling and her heirs owning Harry Potter forever.

They can (and probably will) own Harry Potter forever. They just have to use Trademarks instead of copyright.

That is how Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. does it. They have trademarked all of the characters. Want to make a Tarzan movie? work with ERB Inc., get it approved on its artistic merit, and give them their slice of the pie.

They don't mind the original works drifting into the public domain, because they are using a more proper legal means of maintaining a revenue stream.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Why? You keep asserting that, but why should the author control whether or not someone writes something based on their work? One thing that I've noticed is that when someone simply keeps repeating an assertion, it's likely that it's an unexamined assertion. Is J.K. Rowling harmed by fanflic or for that matter anyone writing in the Harry Potter world?

The Flashman series was based on a character from Tom Brown's school days. In your vision of eternal copy write, that series is never written. Would society be better or worse? You can assert that the author could have just changed the name, but much of the humor is based on the history of that character. Was Thomas Hughes' (who died in 1896) spirit harmed by Fraser writing these books in 1969?

I point again to Moby Dick. Every literate person of the time period knows who Ismael is in the Bible, knows who Ahab is in the Bible. The use of those names sets a mood with the reader without having to spell it out.

You dismiss fanflic, possibly because you see no real societal purpose, but fanflic exists for a purpose. People who may not be up to writing the next great American novel, are able to exercise their creative juices by writing it. I would not be incredibly shocked if some of the better known fanfic writers have more readers than a majority of published writers. Is that bad? If so, why?

And maybe it is because it is fun to play in another's environment. Philip Jose Farmer did just that, in some of his stories. Jungle Rot Kid On The Nod, Venus On The Half Shell, and others).

And when does the specific become generic? How many variants of Private Investigator stories are there. And just how different are they?

Shucks, I wrote some silly PI stories here. (Very badly written, but enjoyed by the old silly crowd that used to be here.)

So would SONY go broke if I wrote a silly story, set in the TV show TIMELESS universe? After all, they left both logical and plot line holes the size of 18 wheelers all over the place. Shucks, would they even be harmed, if it was only read by myself and a few friends?

I dislike absolutes in anything. . .

[GrannyGrump]

leebase said:

"There is no limit to fiction, no limit to creativity."

I would disagree. That seems a very loose statement.

A vote against Perpetual Copyright from me!
Possibly partly due to influence from the Spider Robinson short story "Melancholy Elephants".

Premise:

Perpetual Copyright has been established. *New* works are appearing less and less often. Why? because so many of the purportedly "new" works being submitted for copyright are found to be derivative of existing copyrighted works, and fail of copyright permission. (I seem to remember, but may be wrong, that the heroine's husband composed a wonderful new piece of music, only to discover it recreated a lullaby he heard when he was an infant.)

Writers, musicians, visual artists are losing incentive to create, because IN FACT, there are not an *infinite* number of usable pleasing permutations available.

[leebase]

There is zero evidence of a reduction in the production of fiction. There is an explosion in the production of fiction. Music is something different than fiction.

[GrannyGrump]

Originally Posted by leebase

There is zero evidence of a reduction in the production of fiction. There is an explosion in the production of fiction. Music is something different than fiction. (emphasis added)

Mind you, I did say "pleasing permutations."
Too much of the current explosion consists of drivel and dreck.

But what I was driving at, was that with Perpetual Copyright, the availability of subjects or usable output could be diminished. If it were legally strongly enforced, might it not have a negative impact on that explosion?

(And since I was advancing a fictional situation, it of course has no effect on actual current events.)

[leebase]

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

Mind you, I did say "pleasing permutations."
Too much of the current explosion consists of drivel and dreck.

But what I was driving at, was that with Perpetual Copyright, the availability of subjects or usable output could be diminished. If it were legally strongly enforced, might it not have a negative impact on that explosion?

(And since I was advancing a fictional situation, it of course has no effect on actual current events.)

We have actual copyright now....and no limit on the production of fiction. Due to the efforts of Disney and the like, we have no significant modern fiction that has fallen into the public domain. And still no limit to the production of fiction.

Copyright hasn't locked out any themes, any genres. Nobody owns "buddy copy story", nobody owns vampires. Rowling probably does own "Muggle" but she doesn't own "non magical people".

I refer again to the Jack Reacher, John Puller situation. Jack becomes John, Reacher becomes Puller. I have no idea why Baldacci did this as he clearly was already an established author. Did Lee Child insult his mother? Who knows. But there is nothing Lee Child could do. They aren't "the same", but they are more than kissing cousins. Fun fact....I like both series. And why wouldn't anyone....if you liked one. The Sword of Shanara is a direct rip off of Lord of the rings. Scene for scene. It was only later that Terry Brooks learned to write his own plots.

Music is much more constrained in comparison. Some of the copyright infringements have seemed specious IMHO.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Shucks, I wrote some silly PI stories here. (Very badly written, but enjoyed by the old silly crowd that used to be here.)

Sounds like fun!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by leebase

Music is much more constrained in comparison. Some of the copyright infringements have seemed specious IMHO.

We don't seem to have been able to persuade you that effectively infinite copyright length (e.g. 1,000 years) is a bad idea.

But I don't think you've tried to explain why it's a good idea.

What advantage will there be for society in enacting effectively infinite copyright length?

[leebase]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

We don't seem to have been able to persuade you that effectively infinite copyright length (e.g. 1,000 years) is a bad idea.

But I don't think you've tried to explain why it's a good idea.

What advantage will there be for society in enacting effectively infinite copyright length?

Premise....copyright is a good thing. Without that premise, nothing else works.

Copyright never stops being a good thing in the same way that money never stops being a good thing. If people are still interested in 1000 over Disney's movies today....it will only be because Disney has kept them relevant. Society is not owed Disney's money. Society is benefited by Disney creating content.

It is Disney's ongoing efforts that are making it's copyrights valuable and relevant in the first place.

Few people would know anything about The Little Mermaid...if Disney hadn't made the movie. Then incorporated the characters in a theme park, and a line of toys and other merchandise. Disney deserves to be able to keep building up this value the way Rockefeller got to keep all of his oil profits.

The reason for a limit on patents and non-fictional copyrights is obvious so that society can benefit by the building on. Society has no pressing need to have Disney build on The Little Mermaid in the first pace, nor of somebody taking that value for themselves now. Anybody can create their own story.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by leebase

Few people would know anything about The Little Mermaid...if Disney hadn't made the movie.

You're right! I'd never heard of The Little Mermaid as a child

That statue in Copenhagen keeps getting decapitated because nobody knows who it is supposed to be...

If anything, you are showing that there is value in derivative works. Millions of dollars can be made. Or billions, as Cats shows.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Sounds like fun!

Look in the mobileread library. The first one was The Case Of The Golden Coprolite.

Good writing not included. . .

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by leebase

Premise....copyright is a good thing. Without that premise, nothing else works.

Copyright never stops being a good thing in the same way that money never stops being a good thing. If people are still interested in 1000 over Disney's movies today....it will only be because Disney has kept them relevant. Society is not owed Disney's money. Society is benefited by Disney creating content.

It is Disney's ongoing efforts that are making it's copyrights valuable and relevant in the first place.

Few people would know anything about The Little Mermaid...if Disney hadn't made the movie. Then incorporated the characters in a theme park, and a line of toys and other merchandise. Disney deserves to be able to keep building up this value the way Rockefeller got to keep all of his oil profits.

The reason for a limit on patents and non-fictional copyrights is obvious so that society can benefit by the building on. Society has no pressing need to have Disney build on The Little Mermaid in the first pace, nor of somebody taking that value for themselves now. Anybody can create their own story.

So what if nobody today ended up not knowing about The Little Mermaid today. By your logic, the movie should never have been made, and would not, under permanent copyright. The owner of the copyright would have the property, but it would be moribund. . .

If you really believe in perpetual copyright, then it should be treated like real property, and taxed yearly, whether or not it generates any income or not. Land is taxed, whether or not it produces income or not. . .