7 ms·

Consider this: At 75 years past the death of the creator it’s possible you cannot use anything that came out throughout your entire life. Nothing you grew up w

Consider this: At 75 years past the death of the creator it’s possible you cannot use anything that came out throughout your entire life. Nothing you grew up with, nothing that inspired you, nothing that speaks to the life you lived. It’s even possible that your children and your grandchildren will not be able to use anything you knew. Definitely not anything they knew. We’re in real danger of cultural death with these rules restricting our expression. Thankfully current artists have the option of open licenses for their works. If I could, I would flip a switch right now where I am only exposed to things with open licenses for the rest of my life. I’m happy to forget about everything Disney ever made. They can go put it in the vault forever and protect it with all the lawyers and guards in the world. I will never ask them to release it and they can feel safe that no one will be able to “steal” it.

fyfirhffuug 4y ago
>We’re in real danger of cultural death with these rules restricting our expression.< Isn't it sort of the opposite? Without these rules we'd be stuck drowning in an even larger and blander sea of retellings and reimaginings. The only time I see this considered noble or akin to staving off death is when the culture being preserved is already stagnating anyway.
- joshspankit 4y ago
  Right in this very moment there are hundreds if not thousands of musicians making music absolutely terrified that they will accidentally use prior works they can’t get permission for (or can’t afford). Some are terrified they’ll use “the wrong sample” (is there a list of wrong samples? no), some are even terrified they’ll accidentally “create” a chord progression that someone else already has the rights to. In these cases, that artist can end up getting a little popularity and maybe even a little income, then end up in debt with the song pulled from the internet, never to be played by them again.
  - fyfirhffuug 4y ago
    Right but in these scenarios the similarities to a prior work are the cause of the problem they might face. It's stifling to the musician sure but not in a way that's preventing anything actually unheard before.
    - Jochim 4y ago
      Where's the limit? Perhaps we should award copyright over specific notes. After all we've all heard them before. Music has so many variables that even direct covers often end up conveying something entirely original or unique. The chilling effect of Copyright results in humanity missing out on a huge number of valuable cultural contributions.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Speaking as a part-time musician that knows a lot of musicians, I don’t know anyone who’s worried about accidentally using prior works… that sentence doesn’t make a lot of sense, unless you’re talking about DJs & sampling & remixing specifically? In that case all samples are infringing, there doesn’t need to be a list of wrong samples, because all creative authors automatically have copy rights of their works, in the US. Sampling and remixing is somewhat tolerated as long as you steer completely clear of copying the whole song, and I’ve heard precedent tends to favor cases where people sample from multiple source and not just one other song. Can you share some example cases of the debt you’re talking about? I’m not aware of any major problem along the lines you’re describing for people who are creating new music and not intentionally infringing a little bit.
    - joshspankit 4y ago
      I apologize because this will come off as dismissive, but I don’t mean it that way: I’m specifically talking about musicians who make their living through music and who have enough exposure (say, through album sales) to have the attention of the rival record companies. I say that because in the case of musicians who are “off the radar” the rules don’t really apply. Heck, it’s rare for a musician to get in trouble for playing an exact copy of a popular song at a small venue, but even then I think they all know that they could never release that song on Spotify or YouTube or anywhere else that’s “official” and that’s a demonstration of the kind of fear I’m talking about.
- TheDong 4y ago
  > Without these rules we'd be stuck drowning in an even larger and blander sea of retellings and reimaginings This experiment has been run in the form of open source software. The point of the GPL license, and other open source licenses, is to remove the restrictions of copyright from a work, and encourage people to reuse it, copy it, share it, modify it, etc. Has open source software ended up as a "larger and blander" sea of software "retellings" compared to proprietary software? Was the Xi Editor (RIP https://raphlinus.github.io/xi/2020/06/27/xi-retrospective.html https://raphlinus.github.io/xi/2020/06/27/xi-retrospective.h...) a bland remix of ed? Even moreso than proprietary editors like sublime text? Has there been no progress in Haskell, an open source language, due to the lack of copyright's limitations? Is all non-bland (spicy?) innovation in software done under copyright, and licensed out to other developers so they may enjoy some type system or language? Open source software to me seems like a very clear counter example to your fear.
  - 9dev 4y ago
    I think you got this quite wrong. > Has open source software ended up as a "larger and blander" sea of software "retellings" compared to proprietary software? By all means, yes! There are so many open source clones of proprietary software, lots of stuff that is solved, but fun to rewrite, so people do it. How many pointless gnome themes are there? How many web servers, media players, databases? That’s survivor bias. The number of bland, irrelevant forks on GitHub far outnumbers the few relevant projects, it’s just that we, as software developers, have found ways to ignore those as we sift through options.
    - _Algernon_ 4y ago
      So the system adapted and we are all better of due to that. That warrants the question why we should expect anything else with copyright?
    - berniedurfee 4y ago
      It’s survivor bias in the same way humans have survived all of the various failed experiments of evolution. I think it’s a question of progress vs profit. Though, I also think there needs to be a reasonably balance between the two.
- _Algernon_ 4y ago
  >Without these rules we'd be stuck drowning in an even larger and blander sea of retellings and reimaginings. Imagine saying that statement unironically in a world where the MCU and Disney's Starwars exists.
  - fyfirhffuug 4y ago
    Those considerations were precisely why the phrase "even blander" was chosen and it's not clear to me from your post why expanding the number of people who can capitalize on the same storytelling ip would lead to greater variety rather than more homogeneity.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dahart 4y ago
> it’s possible you cannot use anything that came out throughout your entire life. Nothing you grew up with, nothing that inspired you, nothing that speaks to the life you live. What do you mean by “use”? You can’t sell someone else’s creation just because you like it, that’s true. You can’t copy it and send it to others or post it online. But why should you be able to do those things? Why are you implying that legal restrictions on stealing them for your own profit, or redistributing things for free alike, is akin to not being able to enjoy culture? You are allowed to view/watch/listen/consume legally obtained copies, and be inspired by them. You & teachers/schools are allowed to made educational copies for school. You are allowed to pay homage to things you grew up with, artistically, and share snippets and some kinds of remix under Fair Use. You can copy styles legally without copying content, if you want. You are allowed to have and hold any culture you want. You are allowed to create new work and give it to anyone you want. This seems like FUD. Copyrights have been longer than the average lifespan for more than 100 years and we still have plenty of culture - spread of culture has even been accelerating in many ways. Strong arguments do exist for reducing and/or weakening copyrights, but pretending that copyrights prevent the spread of arts and culture isn’t accurate. (And might be willfully blind to the intended and actual ways that copyrights successfully promote cultural development and incentivize new creative works.)
- joshspankit 4y ago
  Talk to the people who have created games based on existing characters: they made their own original work because they loved it, put in hundreds of hours, released it for free, and had their work taken off the internet with a cease and desist. We see examples like that all the time. When was the last time someone was able to make their own popular movie from existing characters without facing some type of legal action? And I’m not talking about the “30% different loophole” where creators have to figure out the balance between recognizable and alienating.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Can you share some specific examples? Using someone else’s existing characters is probably stealing/infringing. That is not 100% original work. I haven’t heard about this being a big problem, most people know you can’t borrow characters from big studio productions without facing legal action, so they don’t attempt it. Edit to mention up higher that when using someone else’s characters is trademark infringement, that is completely different and doesn’t support your arguments about copyright at all.
sb057 4y ago
It's worse than that, there are still works that predate the founding of the United States of America that are still under copyright: https://www.techdirt.com/2012/09/19/what-public-domain-why-letter-written-1755-is-still-covered-us-copyright-law/ https://www.techdirt.com/2012/09/19/what-public-domain-why-l... Originally authored in 1755, set to expire in 2052, a mere 297 years after it was originally written!

fyfirhffuug 4y ago

>We’re in real danger of cultural death with these rules restricting our expression.< Isn't it sort of the opposite? Without these rules we'd be stuck drowning in an even larger and blander sea of retellings and reimaginings. The only time I see this considered noble or akin to staving off death is when the culture being preserved is already stagnating anyway.

joshspankit 4y ago
Right in this very moment there are hundreds if not thousands of musicians making music absolutely terrified that they will accidentally use prior works they can’t get permission for (or can’t afford). Some are terrified they’ll use “the wrong sample” (is there a list of wrong samples? no), some are even terrified they’ll accidentally “create” a chord progression that someone else already has the rights to. In these cases, that artist can end up getting a little popularity and maybe even a little income, then end up in debt with the song pulled from the internet, never to be played by them again.
- fyfirhffuug 4y ago
  Right but in these scenarios the similarities to a prior work are the cause of the problem they might face. It's stifling to the musician sure but not in a way that's preventing anything actually unheard before.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    Where's the limit? Perhaps we should award copyright over specific notes. After all we've all heard them before. Music has so many variables that even direct covers often end up conveying something entirely original or unique. The chilling effect of Copyright results in humanity missing out on a huge number of valuable cultural contributions.
- dahart 4y ago
  Speaking as a part-time musician that knows a lot of musicians, I don’t know anyone who’s worried about accidentally using prior works… that sentence doesn’t make a lot of sense, unless you’re talking about DJs & sampling & remixing specifically? In that case all samples are infringing, there doesn’t need to be a list of wrong samples, because all creative authors automatically have copy rights of their works, in the US. Sampling and remixing is somewhat tolerated as long as you steer completely clear of copying the whole song, and I’ve heard precedent tends to favor cases where people sample from multiple source and not just one other song. Can you share some example cases of the debt you’re talking about? I’m not aware of any major problem along the lines you’re describing for people who are creating new music and not intentionally infringing a little bit.
  - joshspankit 4y ago
    I apologize because this will come off as dismissive, but I don’t mean it that way: I’m specifically talking about musicians who make their living through music and who have enough exposure (say, through album sales) to have the attention of the rival record companies. I say that because in the case of musicians who are “off the radar” the rules don’t really apply. Heck, it’s rare for a musician to get in trouble for playing an exact copy of a popular song at a small venue, but even then I think they all know that they could never release that song on Spotify or YouTube or anywhere else that’s “official” and that’s a demonstration of the kind of fear I’m talking about.
TheDong 4y ago
> Without these rules we'd be stuck drowning in an even larger and blander sea of retellings and reimaginings This experiment has been run in the form of open source software. The point of the GPL license, and other open source licenses, is to remove the restrictions of copyright from a work, and encourage people to reuse it, copy it, share it, modify it, etc. Has open source software ended up as a "larger and blander" sea of software "retellings" compared to proprietary software? Was the Xi Editor (RIP https://raphlinus.github.io/xi/2020/06/27/xi-retrospective.html https://raphlinus.github.io/xi/2020/06/27/xi-retrospective.h...) a bland remix of ed? Even moreso than proprietary editors like sublime text? Has there been no progress in Haskell, an open source language, due to the lack of copyright's limitations? Is all non-bland (spicy?) innovation in software done under copyright, and licensed out to other developers so they may enjoy some type system or language? Open source software to me seems like a very clear counter example to your fear.
- 9dev 4y ago
  I think you got this quite wrong. > Has open source software ended up as a "larger and blander" sea of software "retellings" compared to proprietary software? By all means, yes! There are so many open source clones of proprietary software, lots of stuff that is solved, but fun to rewrite, so people do it. How many pointless gnome themes are there? How many web servers, media players, databases? That’s survivor bias. The number of bland, irrelevant forks on GitHub far outnumbers the few relevant projects, it’s just that we, as software developers, have found ways to ignore those as we sift through options.
  - _Algernon_ 4y ago
    So the system adapted and we are all better of due to that. That warrants the question why we should expect anything else with copyright?
  - berniedurfee 4y ago
    It’s survivor bias in the same way humans have survived all of the various failed experiments of evolution. I think it’s a question of progress vs profit. Though, I also think there needs to be a reasonably balance between the two.
_Algernon_ 4y ago
>Without these rules we'd be stuck drowning in an even larger and blander sea of retellings and reimaginings. Imagine saying that statement unironically in a world where the MCU and Disney's Starwars exists.
- fyfirhffuug 4y ago
  Those considerations were precisely why the phrase "even blander" was chosen and it's not clear to me from your post why expanding the number of people who can capitalize on the same storytelling ip would lead to greater variety rather than more homogeneity.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dahart 4y ago

> it’s possible you cannot use anything that came out throughout your entire life. Nothing you grew up with, nothing that inspired you, nothing that speaks to the life you live. What do you mean by “use”? You can’t sell someone else’s creation just because you like it, that’s true. You can’t copy it and send it to others or post it online. But why should you be able to do those things? Why are you implying that legal restrictions on stealing them for your own profit, or redistributing things for free alike, is akin to not being able to enjoy culture? You are allowed to view/watch/listen/consume legally obtained copies, and be inspired by them. You & teachers/schools are allowed to made educational copies for school. You are allowed to pay homage to things you grew up with, artistically, and share snippets and some kinds of remix under Fair Use. You can copy styles legally without copying content, if you want. You are allowed to have and hold any culture you want. You are allowed to create new work and give it to anyone you want. This seems like FUD. Copyrights have been longer than the average lifespan for more than 100 years and we still have plenty of culture - spread of culture has even been accelerating in many ways. Strong arguments do exist for reducing and/or weakening copyrights, but pretending that copyrights prevent the spread of arts and culture isn’t accurate. (And might be willfully blind to the intended and actual ways that copyrights successfully promote cultural development and incentivize new creative works.)

joshspankit 4y ago
Talk to the people who have created games based on existing characters: they made their own original work because they loved it, put in hundreds of hours, released it for free, and had their work taken off the internet with a cease and desist. We see examples like that all the time. When was the last time someone was able to make their own popular movie from existing characters without facing some type of legal action? And I’m not talking about the “30% different loophole” where creators have to figure out the balance between recognizable and alienating.
- dahart 4y ago
  Can you share some specific examples? Using someone else’s existing characters is probably stealing/infringing. That is not 100% original work. I haven’t heard about this being a big problem, most people know you can’t borrow characters from big studio productions without facing legal action, so they don’t attempt it. Edit to mention up higher that when using someone else’s characters is trademark infringement, that is completely different and doesn’t support your arguments about copyright at all.

sb057 4y ago

It's worse than that, there are still works that predate the founding of the United States of America that are still under copyright: https://www.techdirt.com/2012/09/19/what-public-domain-why-letter-written-1755-is-still-covered-us-copyright-law/ https://www.techdirt.com/2012/09/19/what-public-domain-why-l... Originally authored in 1755, set to expire in 2052, a mere 297 years after it was originally written!