3 ms·

What if you write a great novel? Should whoever is best able to publish and market it be allowed to get all the profits from it and leave you with nothing? I ag

What if you write a great novel? Should whoever is best able to publish and market it be allowed to get all the profits from it and leave you with nothing? I agree that the current intellectual property system has lots of problems and it favors wealthy companies that can navigate the legal system, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of all protections.

EvanAnderson 8y ago
There exist a class of people who absolutely do believe that the creator of a work doesn't "own" that work and has no entitlement to the profits of duplicating and distributing that work. I've applied the "free-est" license that I can to every bit of "intellectual property" I've ever made-- be that the Perl Artistic License for software or a Creative Commons public domain dedication for music, photos, and non-software writing. I don't believe I'm "owed" anything by anyone for the ideas I've chosen to publicly express. One could argue that the things I've produced are "worthless", since I'm a rank amateur at everything I do, and that the gesture is meaningless on that basis. I don't think that changes the nature of the gesture, personally-- I worked as hard on the works I've created than anyone else, and I don't feel at all entitled to "protections". One could also argue that it would be different if I "made my living" from creating "intellectual property". I have specifically avoided that in my life because I don't believe that's a morally right way to "make a living". I can't tell you how I'd feel if I couldn't "make a living" exploiting copyright protections because I'd never do it to begin with. Edit: My attitude does mean that some business models simply wouldn't exist. I'm not saddened by that, and I don't think humanity is any the poorer for it. Artists will still express themselves, whether they're paid for it or not. Patronage models existed before copyright and drove the creation of many great works. There are other ways that works can be created besides a royalty-based model.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > I've applied the "free-est" license that I can to every bit of "intellectual property" I've ever made-- be that the Perl Artistic License for software or a Creative Commons public domain dedication for music, photos, and non-software writing. I don't believe I'm "owed" anything by anyone for the ideas I've chosen to publicly express. Good for you, but why should you be able to force everyone else to give away their work as you have done?
  - EvanAnderson 8y ago
    I am alright with copyright existing if the terms were actually limited in duration. The current term is vastly too long. The "consideration" portion of the social contract is currently stilted too far in the favor of the creator of the work. Since I disagree with the system, as it is, I don't feel like I exploit any of its "protections" w/o being a hypocrite. Even if the terms were made more reasonable (by decreasing the duration) I still don't think I'd avail myself, but I'd be alright if others did.
TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
IMO, copyright needs to be much shorter. Once you share something with society, which is the mechanism through which your thing becomes successful, you give up control. If you publish a great novel, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to write a sequel or short story, as long as I'm not passing myself off as you. For that matter, I don't see why people shouldn't be able to rewrite parts of a story. The original doesn't suddenly go away, it's just been forked. Maybe the fork is better and people enjoy it more. Let the best story win.

EvanAnderson 8y ago

There exist a class of people who absolutely do believe that the creator of a work doesn't "own" that work and has no entitlement to the profits of duplicating and distributing that work. I've applied the "free-est" license that I can to every bit of "intellectual property" I've ever made-- be that the Perl Artistic License for software or a Creative Commons public domain dedication for music, photos, and non-software writing. I don't believe I'm "owed" anything by anyone for the ideas I've chosen to publicly express. One could argue that the things I've produced are "worthless", since I'm a rank amateur at everything I do, and that the gesture is meaningless on that basis. I don't think that changes the nature of the gesture, personally-- I worked as hard on the works I've created than anyone else, and I don't feel at all entitled to "protections". One could also argue that it would be different if I "made my living" from creating "intellectual property". I have specifically avoided that in my life because I don't believe that's a morally right way to "make a living". I can't tell you how I'd feel if I couldn't "make a living" exploiting copyright protections because I'd never do it to begin with. Edit: My attitude does mean that some business models simply wouldn't exist. I'm not saddened by that, and I don't think humanity is any the poorer for it. Artists will still express themselves, whether they're paid for it or not. Patronage models existed before copyright and drove the creation of many great works. There are other ways that works can be created besides a royalty-based model.

twblalock 8y ago
> I've applied the "free-est" license that I can to every bit of "intellectual property" I've ever made-- be that the Perl Artistic License for software or a Creative Commons public domain dedication for music, photos, and non-software writing. I don't believe I'm "owed" anything by anyone for the ideas I've chosen to publicly express. Good for you, but why should you be able to force everyone else to give away their work as you have done?
- EvanAnderson 8y ago
  I am alright with copyright existing if the terms were actually limited in duration. The current term is vastly too long. The "consideration" portion of the social contract is currently stilted too far in the favor of the creator of the work. Since I disagree with the system, as it is, I don't feel like I exploit any of its "protections" w/o being a hypocrite. Even if the terms were made more reasonable (by decreasing the duration) I still don't think I'd avail myself, but I'd be alright if others did.

TheAceOfHearts 8y ago

IMO, copyright needs to be much shorter. Once you share something with society, which is the mechanism through which your thing becomes successful, you give up control. If you publish a great novel, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to write a sequel or short story, as long as I'm not passing myself off as you. For that matter, I don't see why people shouldn't be able to rewrite parts of a story. The original doesn't suddenly go away, it's just been forked. Maybe the fork is better and people enjoy it more. Let the best story win.