4 ms·

Harry Potter would not have been written and published, and made into a global phenom without IP laws in the ballpark as they stand. There is zero chance the P

by jariel 6y ago

Harry Potter would not have been written and published, and made into a global phenom without IP laws in the ballpark as they stand. There is zero chance the Potter films would have been made were the Studios not able to protect their distribution. There are other parties in the system, the content creators, who are pretty strongly affected by these rules - it's an equilibrium, you can get the same kind of output when you change the to empower one side.

WalterBright 6y ago
> Harry Potter would not have been written That's not clear at all. Many people create things for vanity purposes. And some people just like telling stories. > and published Printers published books with abandon before there was copyright. In fact, the motivation for copyright laws was to put a stop to that.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Yeah, the argument that creative works wouldn't have been created without current IP laws is rubbish. Almost the entirely of the Western literature cannon was written before our current IP laws. Even in Dicken's time, he was able to profit without obscene copyright laws, because back then publishers would simply purchase the manuscript from him (which would be his income) and then they would print and sell them. I find the notion that the number of times your book is read should be proportional to the income you make from it, to be entirely antithetical to the point of creativity and art. Doesn't matter whether your book is read by 1 person or by 1 million. You still put in the same amount of work. And, presumably, the higher quality the work, the more will read it. But not always. That's life. If a publisher thinks they can sell me or if you're an already famous and established author, publishers will buy your manuscripts for higher prices. If a publisher wants to enter into a royalties agreement then that is their own affair. We as a society should not be encouraging such arrangements - which is exactly what our copyright laws are designed to do.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    That brings up the possibility of ad-supported writing - like we see with free TV, most of the internet, etc. Heck, I've often paid writers to write stuff for my business that I then give away for free.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "Yeah, the argument that creative works wouldn't have been created without current IP laws is rubbish. " I didn't say that 'no works would have been created' - I said Harry Potter would not have - and certainly not the films. I am not denying that some content will be created - but the anti IP people are sadly denying the very stark reality that most of it would not. Harry Potter is definitely an example of a work that would not have been created, given the authors personal history during writing her works. The sheer arrogance of those dismissing but the humane aspect of content creators not being able to make a living from the works, combined with the ignorance of the material reality of what this would mean for content creation and massive industries is missing from the argument. "I find the notion that the number of times your book is read should be proportional to the income you make from it, to be entirely antithetical to the point of creativity and art." Spoken by someone who has never actually created such work I can assume? Have you ever actually made any 'art' or tried to do this full time? Because your treatise speaks entirely and fully from the perspective of the consumer, who naturally, doesn't want to pay anything. "I want everything for free because that's the way I feel about art" is not an argument.
    - Thorentis 6y ago
      I can comment and have opinions on the artistic and creative pursuits without actively pursuing all of them. You cannot prove that HP would not have been written if profit protections didn't exist, unless you ask JK "if copyright didn't exist, would you still have written HP?". My argument is that creative works will still be created because they always have been, and because people have created them before our laws existed. You also assume that for-profit creators stopping their work is a bad thing. I am happy for people to be earning a living doing what they do. But I think the way we go about providing them with it is wrong. The material reality is that artists were only successful if they were actually good. That shouldn't stop people from doing them - like I said elsewhere, I think artistic pursuits are good in themselves aside from profit. But walk into any bookstore, go to the fiction section, and gaze on all the mediocre literature you can buy. I don't say that arrogantly. I couldn't write much of it. I am not putting myself above those authors. I am simply saying that the works themselves are mediocre, they won't be studied or remembered. They are simply entertainment. And I am happy for it to exist. But I can guarentee you that many of those authors were writing purely in the hopes that they'd "make it big". That maybe, just maybe, a movie company would see their book, and want to buy multi-million dollar film rights. This, to me, is a perverse incentive for writing. And so I have no problem if less of it is published with the changing of laws. Not everybody needs to go to university. Not everybody is a skilled enough actor to make it on Broadway. Not everybody is the next Michaelangelo. Pretending that the arts is a level playing field in terms of ability is a waste of time. Talent is always rewarded eventually. The best artists don't need to say how good they are. The best authors don't need to say how good they are. In almost every case of copyright litigation, I saw mediocre creators quibbling over small profits that are "rightfully theirs". Just stop. Save your breath, and find a day job. Keep writing for the love it. Start a journal when you go home. Try and sell some of your work to a small publishing house for a small fee. And then be chuffed if enough people like it enough to copy it.
- jariel 6y ago
  "That's not clear at all." It's clear in the case of Harry Potter and even more clear in the case of the films. Remember that artists are still able to give away their works for free even today. How many of them do it? How many filmmakers make films to just give away? How many actors work for free? IP always needs be re-worked and there are a lot failings, but most of the anti-IP arguments fail to consider the reality of the other side of the equilibrium.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > It's clear in the case of Harry Potter How do you know that? > and even more clear in the case of the films. How many movies are published straight to youtube? How about all the TV shows that were ad-supported? > How many of them do it? See youtube.

by jariel 6y ago

WalterBright 6y ago

> Harry Potter would not have been written That's not clear at all. Many people create things for vanity purposes. And some people just like telling stories. > and published Printers published books with abandon before there was copyright. In fact, the motivation for copyright laws was to put a stop to that.

Thorentis 6y ago
Yeah, the argument that creative works wouldn't have been created without current IP laws is rubbish. Almost the entirely of the Western literature cannon was written before our current IP laws. Even in Dicken's time, he was able to profit without obscene copyright laws, because back then publishers would simply purchase the manuscript from him (which would be his income) and then they would print and sell them. I find the notion that the number of times your book is read should be proportional to the income you make from it, to be entirely antithetical to the point of creativity and art. Doesn't matter whether your book is read by 1 person or by 1 million. You still put in the same amount of work. And, presumably, the higher quality the work, the more will read it. But not always. That's life. If a publisher thinks they can sell me or if you're an already famous and established author, publishers will buy your manuscripts for higher prices. If a publisher wants to enter into a royalties agreement then that is their own affair. We as a society should not be encouraging such arrangements - which is exactly what our copyright laws are designed to do.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  That brings up the possibility of ad-supported writing - like we see with free TV, most of the internet, etc. Heck, I've often paid writers to write stuff for my business that I then give away for free.
- jariel 6y ago
  "Yeah, the argument that creative works wouldn't have been created without current IP laws is rubbish. " I didn't say that 'no works would have been created' - I said Harry Potter would not have - and certainly not the films. I am not denying that some content will be created - but the anti IP people are sadly denying the very stark reality that most of it would not. Harry Potter is definitely an example of a work that would not have been created, given the authors personal history during writing her works. The sheer arrogance of those dismissing but the humane aspect of content creators not being able to make a living from the works, combined with the ignorance of the material reality of what this would mean for content creation and massive industries is missing from the argument. "I find the notion that the number of times your book is read should be proportional to the income you make from it, to be entirely antithetical to the point of creativity and art." Spoken by someone who has never actually created such work I can assume? Have you ever actually made any 'art' or tried to do this full time? Because your treatise speaks entirely and fully from the perspective of the consumer, who naturally, doesn't want to pay anything. "I want everything for free because that's the way I feel about art" is not an argument.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    I can comment and have opinions on the artistic and creative pursuits without actively pursuing all of them. You cannot prove that HP would not have been written if profit protections didn't exist, unless you ask JK "if copyright didn't exist, would you still have written HP?". My argument is that creative works will still be created because they always have been, and because people have created them before our laws existed. You also assume that for-profit creators stopping their work is a bad thing. I am happy for people to be earning a living doing what they do. But I think the way we go about providing them with it is wrong. The material reality is that artists were only successful if they were actually good. That shouldn't stop people from doing them - like I said elsewhere, I think artistic pursuits are good in themselves aside from profit. But walk into any bookstore, go to the fiction section, and gaze on all the mediocre literature you can buy. I don't say that arrogantly. I couldn't write much of it. I am not putting myself above those authors. I am simply saying that the works themselves are mediocre, they won't be studied or remembered. They are simply entertainment. And I am happy for it to exist. But I can guarentee you that many of those authors were writing purely in the hopes that they'd "make it big". That maybe, just maybe, a movie company would see their book, and want to buy multi-million dollar film rights. This, to me, is a perverse incentive for writing. And so I have no problem if less of it is published with the changing of laws. Not everybody needs to go to university. Not everybody is a skilled enough actor to make it on Broadway. Not everybody is the next Michaelangelo. Pretending that the arts is a level playing field in terms of ability is a waste of time. Talent is always rewarded eventually. The best artists don't need to say how good they are. The best authors don't need to say how good they are. In almost every case of copyright litigation, I saw mediocre creators quibbling over small profits that are "rightfully theirs". Just stop. Save your breath, and find a day job. Keep writing for the love it. Start a journal when you go home. Try and sell some of your work to a small publishing house for a small fee. And then be chuffed if enough people like it enough to copy it.
jariel 6y ago
"That's not clear at all." It's clear in the case of Harry Potter and even more clear in the case of the films. Remember that artists are still able to give away their works for free even today. How many of them do it? How many filmmakers make films to just give away? How many actors work for free? IP always needs be re-worked and there are a lot failings, but most of the anti-IP arguments fail to consider the reality of the other side of the equilibrium.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > It's clear in the case of Harry Potter How do you know that? > and even more clear in the case of the films. How many movies are published straight to youtube? How about all the TV shows that were ad-supported? > How many of them do it? See youtube.