4 ms·

There's a difference. If you invent a character or create some art and it gets popular, you deserve to be protected from people making money of off that work, t

There's a difference. If you invent a character or create some art and it gets popular, you deserve to be protected from people making money of off that work, to a reasonable extent (fair use etc). The difference to patents is that they're routinely abused. Patent trolls file or buy up patents that are as general as possible to drag smaller companies through the courts, or charge exorbitant licensing fees, stifling innovation. Pharma companies build monopolies around life-saving drugs and engage in price gouging. The patent holders get rich, not the biochem majors. Extending the effective period for patents will make things worse, not better, as the real problems are elsewhere.

hajile 5y ago
Are you implying then that copyright is not routinely abused? Big companies do this all the time (eg, Google v Oracle or the Unix lawsuits). There's fan fiction of almost every character you can imagine. Can you name even ONE fan fiction you'd rather consume instead of the original author's work?
- Uehreka 5y ago
  Millions of people seem to have purchased the Fifty Shades books/movies, and some portion of them did not read/watch Twilight, so…
djbebs 5y ago
No you don't deserve anything. Just like a rice farmer doesn't deserve to have a monopoly on selling rice to the village he lives in.
- Veen 5y ago
  Rice farmers have a monopoly on the rice they grow—if someone else takes it without permission and sells it they are considered thieves. But it doesn't really make sense to compare physical goods and creative goods like that. You can't "copy" rice in the same way you can copy a novel; rice doesn't need copyright. The reason copyright was invented in the first place was to encourage creative work by allowing the creator to profit from it for a period. It aims to balance potential benefits—the one that accrues to the creator and the one that accrues to the general population once copyright expires. You might think that the creator does not deserve any benefit from their creation, but most creators would disagree with you. Code is a possible exception. The benefits of open source development may greatly outweight the benefits that would accrue to an individual developer if the code couldn't be copied, but I'm not sure that the balance is the same for novels and movies. I suspect many valuable creative works would simply not be created if the creator had no way to benefit. Perhaps we need a more nuanced discussion that considers the actual benefits/harms of copyright periods on particular artforms and creative endeavours.
  - beardog 5y ago
    Ironically in some jurisdictions, you can patent crops. Patent != copyright of course, but it is related as in this case it would partly be used to prevent sale of the same type of rice.
  - djbebs 5y ago
    Have you ever heard of farming? It's this new technology that let's people copy grains of rice, just like copying a book.
    - Veen 5y ago
      Farming is not like copying a book. I just wasted a fair bit of time commenting about how farming is not like copying a fucking book and the implications that arise from that. But apparently you didn't bother to read it, are too thick to understand it, or simply prefer to respond with cretinous sarcasm, so I won't waste my time any further.
Zigurd 5y ago
Disney owning what amounts to a controlling share of mass culture is roughly comparable to patent trolls. The copyright clause that enables copyright law is about protecting creators from rogue publishers. It was never meant to control what individuals could do with copyright protected works, short of publishing for profit.
grayfaced 5y ago
Trademark law is what protects your character after the copyright expires. Mickey Mouse is safe. It would allow other companies to sell Steamboat Willie (as is), but it wouldn't allow them to make a derivative work and sell it as "Mickey Mouse".

hajile 5y ago

Are you implying then that copyright is not routinely abused? Big companies do this all the time (eg, Google v Oracle or the Unix lawsuits). There's fan fiction of almost every character you can imagine. Can you name even ONE fan fiction you'd rather consume instead of the original author's work?

Uehreka 5y ago
Millions of people seem to have purchased the Fifty Shades books/movies, and some portion of them did not read/watch Twilight, so…

djbebs 5y ago

No you don't deserve anything. Just like a rice farmer doesn't deserve to have a monopoly on selling rice to the village he lives in.

Veen 5y ago
Rice farmers have a monopoly on the rice they grow—if someone else takes it without permission and sells it they are considered thieves. But it doesn't really make sense to compare physical goods and creative goods like that. You can't "copy" rice in the same way you can copy a novel; rice doesn't need copyright. The reason copyright was invented in the first place was to encourage creative work by allowing the creator to profit from it for a period. It aims to balance potential benefits—the one that accrues to the creator and the one that accrues to the general population once copyright expires. You might think that the creator does not deserve any benefit from their creation, but most creators would disagree with you. Code is a possible exception. The benefits of open source development may greatly outweight the benefits that would accrue to an individual developer if the code couldn't be copied, but I'm not sure that the balance is the same for novels and movies. I suspect many valuable creative works would simply not be created if the creator had no way to benefit. Perhaps we need a more nuanced discussion that considers the actual benefits/harms of copyright periods on particular artforms and creative endeavours.
- beardog 5y ago
  Ironically in some jurisdictions, you can patent crops. Patent != copyright of course, but it is related as in this case it would partly be used to prevent sale of the same type of rice.
- djbebs 5y ago
  Have you ever heard of farming? It's this new technology that let's people copy grains of rice, just like copying a book.
  - Veen 5y ago
    Farming is not like copying a book. I just wasted a fair bit of time commenting about how farming is not like copying a fucking book and the implications that arise from that. But apparently you didn't bother to read it, are too thick to understand it, or simply prefer to respond with cretinous sarcasm, so I won't waste my time any further.

Zigurd 5y ago

Disney owning what amounts to a controlling share of mass culture is roughly comparable to patent trolls. The copyright clause that enables copyright law is about protecting creators from rogue publishers. It was never meant to control what individuals could do with copyright protected works, short of publishing for profit.

grayfaced 5y ago

Trademark law is what protects your character after the copyright expires. Mickey Mouse is safe. It would allow other companies to sell Steamboat Willie (as is), but it wouldn't allow them to make a derivative work and sell it as "Mickey Mouse".