5 ms·
This type of argument always distracts from the fact that figuring out where we draw the line between theft and reimagining. The Magnificent Seven for instance
by mihaic 4y ago
This type of argument always distracts from the fact that figuring out where we draw the line between theft and reimagining.
The Magnificent Seven for instance was a reworking of Seven Samurai, but stands on its own as an original creation. Going into a cinema and filming a picture to later put on a torrent site is not artistic reworking.
The hard discussion is about what is acceptable, we all know prior art exists.
- scotty79 4y agoThere are many differences between those acts of thievery or inspired creation however you might call it. But there are many similarities too. Fascination with the original is one. Desire to own it in one way or another is one too. Differences are in the skills, the means, the result, what was stolen and financial success that came out of the act.
- ajuc 4y ago> The hard discussion is about what is acceptable What if we just say "both"? Libraries were a thing for millenia and writers still wrote books. There are costs to IP laws and the benefits aren't obvious.
- Veen 4y agoAs a writer, the benefits are quite obvious to me.
- js8 4y agoBenefits of what? Of copyright enforcement, or of sharing?
- bryanrasmussen 4y agothe grandparent comment said the benefits of IP Laws were not obvious. So it is of the benefit of the laws as they currently exist, that implies enforcement of said laws.
- Timwi 4y agoConvenient, isn't it? As a consumer, it's quite obvious to me too how it benefits only the writer/creator at the detriment of everyone else.
- barthvr 4y agoBecause writing a book, shooting a movie, composing a song, takes time ? So either those pieces are IP-protected, and their author can make money with it, or we have to set up a basic income for everyone, and art becomes free.
- regularfry 4y agoIt's perfectly consistent to say both that there needs to be a system to ensure creators are compensated and that the current system for doing so is terrible.
- Veen 4y agoIt is consistent but useless if you have no suggestion as to what would replace the current system in a way that preserves the benefits to both parties. 1. Creators get a sustainable reward for their work. They wouldn't do it otherwise. I certainly don't do it for fun. 2. Consumers get to access that work as they wish. (Of course, this being HN, I'd expect any ideas to apply to developers as well as to writers and artists i.e. if writers have to give up copyright, so do developers, startups, and so on.)
- regularfry 4y agoKeeping the benefits intact for both parties is a non-goal. How about 14 year max copyright terms? Make copyright unsellable and uninheritable, so you don't get massive copyright hoarding entities that can distort legislation for their own benefit? That's just two suggestions off the top of my head. I do get tired by false dichotomies.
- meheleventyone 4y agoLibraries pay fees to lend books, at least in our modern capitalist society.
- ajuc 4y agoIt was a news to me so I checked and it's true. Since 2016 in my country ;) And it's a symbolic amount for vast majority of authors (country-wide it's around 5-5000 USD per year per author and the distribution is heavily skewed towards 5 USD). So yeah :) I think authors were fine without these 5 bucks a year. EDIT cause it might not be obvious. It's not per library. It's per country.
- jrochkind1 4y agoNot in the USA, where the "first-sale doctrine" means once you buy a book, you can do whatever you want with that copy of the book (lend, rent, sell, destroy) without needing a license. Libraries in the USA definitely don't pay a fee beyond the purchase price of the book (or they can legally lend donated books etc). Copyright holders don't make any additional money from library lending. I am not familiar with how it works in other countries, but I have heard something about there being such a fee. (It's not quite true to say libraries have existed for "millenia" though, with regard to this issue. Mass produced printing hasn't in fact existed for millenia, libraries 1000 years ago had hand-copied manuscripts, probably mostly scrolls. The effect on "the market"? For whatever reason authors were writing then it was not to make money by selling reproductions of their writings, that wasn't a thing. Which means, yeah, btw, people still wrote things and made up stories even when they couldn't make money by charging people for copies to read...)
- Griffinsauce 4y ago> This type of argument always distracts from the fact that figuring out where we draw the line between theft and reimagining. This seems to be missing a word, could you clarify? Also: since you mentioned theft: this actually comes down to the discussion whether you can own thought and/or digital artifacts which can be replicated without taking anything away from the "owner". Given the absolute choice I'd rather pick complete freedom than restriction. I suspect that anyone's opinion on this follows what they value higher: creation or exploitation.
- mihaic 4y agoSorry, I should have double checked, that sentence was incomplete. Yes, I meant to say that a more nuanced approach is crucial, and that means rejecting that we have to choose between Disney-backed extreme IP laws or total freedom.