3 ms·

Just some comments: > She probably would have sold a few copies before you'd be able to do that; and maybe you could produce a slightly modified version that w

by route66 15y ago

Just some comments: > She probably would have sold a few copies before you'd be able to do that; and maybe you could produce a slightly modified version that would be better. I don't even know what "better" means in the context of works of art. In any case it's about money: You would see it justified to cash in on someone else's work after she "sold some copies"? Also this remembers me of the common practice of the ripoff: "hendrix' greatest solo's": not mentioning that they were recorded by john doe . > It's worth noting that some of the best works of mankind were produced when no copyright was in place, so the argument that associates copyright protections with content creation is weak at best. It is not weak for that reason. Currently works which are commonly copyrighted nowadays are reproduced very easily: lossless copying, printing, electronic editing etc. Try that with the sistine chapel. You would have to clone the Borgias first. Quoting is indeed very common in art but it does not compare to copying. I think that the circumstances are not comparable. > Derivative works are authored all the time. Yes. See above. But selling Harry Potter with some changed scenes is a ripoff and not a derivative work. > Most of what Disney ever produced is derived from popular classics from the 18th / 19th centuries (I remember that in "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame", the original author, Victor Hugo, isn't even credited) Completely agree. Disney is indeed fishy what concerns his copyrights based on other's efforts. But honestly: when and why should you be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs?

bambax 15y ago
> You would see it justified to cash in on someone else's work after she "sold some copies"? In fact the answer to the example of Harry Potter should be that if copyright didn't exist, then it would be hard to sell any copy. Maybe some people would be able to sell printed copies, or better copies, or from a manufacturer approved by the author, etc. -- but most (electronic) copies would be available for free. The question is: would it be bad? You seem to think that it would be morally bad; I'm not sure what morals have to do with it. It would be legal. Would it be economically bad? I'm not sure either. In general, contrary to what people seem to believe, the economy benefits from cheaper goods. But the larger point is that works of the mind belong to the public. They used to be in the public domain by default. Copyright is something that is cut from the property of the general public, and given to someone as an incentive to produce more original work. The public should make sure they're getting their money's worth when granting copyright extensions. And, as it is obvious this is not the case, we should be demanding copyright reduction. When you want ten bucks, ask for a million. When you want a shorter copyright length, ask for zero.
Natsu 15y ago
> But honestly: when and why should you be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs? When the copyright expires is both the when & why. Same as Disney did when they cashed in on the original story by the Brothers Grimm. Granted, I don't expect the copyright to expire any time soon when they can retroactively extend it.
- bediger 15y ago
  How about in the case of "better quality mugs"? Trivial examples can often reveal important points, when examined closely. What if Disney Mugs, Inc, a solely-owned subsidiary of Giant Immoral MegaCorp, made very poor quality mugs, ones where the handles broke off? If you infringed copyright, and made unbreakable mugs, lots of parents and children would be very grateful.
  - bambax 15y ago
    ... or toys with less lead in them... ;-) http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/16/toys-product-safety-biz-commerce-cx_wp_1216toxictoys_slide_9.html http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/16/toys-product-safety-biz-com...
    - bediger 15y ago
      Sure, there's a million ways to make better quality or more desirable goods. That's why the monopoly part of copyrights is undesirable from a consumer's standpoint. Goods of lower quality command higher prices when they're copyrighted or patented.
ggchappell 15y ago
> But honestly: when and why should you be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs? I think your question is backwards; it puts the burden of proof on the wrong side. Freedom is not what needs justification; rather, restrictions on freedom need justification. A better question would be, "When and why should you not be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing Disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs?" And if no adequate justification is found for restricting freedoms, then they ought not to be restricted.
Retric 15y ago
I read far more fiction produced with zero expectation of financial return than 'traditional' fiction. Sure most of it is terrible, but so are most books. When Harry Potter fan fiction outpaces the actual published books by 1,000's to 1 all it takes is a sane ranking system to find something interesting to read. If the cost of abolishing copy-write on fiction books is no fiction book would be published in any form then I would find that perfectly acceptable, because I know there are plenty of viable alternatives. So, while I think you can make a case for copy-write it's not necessary and at the extremes it's clearly harmful. Just think of how many great movies would not have been produced if if Shakespeare's plays where still under protected. You don't get to see Pride and Prejudice and Zombies in a world of unlimited copy-write. (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594743347/ref=asc_df_15947433471849115?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395093&creativeASIN=1594743347 http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594743347/ref=asc_df_1594743347184...) PS: I think a 5 year copy-write length for movies, TV shows and video games is a perfectly acceptable, but I don't think they need copy-write protection either.
geon 15y ago
> You would see it justified to cash in on someone else's work after she "sold some copies"? If I wanted to pay for her books at all, I would make sure to buy them from her, not some other random dude, who might have "improved" the story. A lot of the people who buy Nike, Fila, Adidas etc. Would never wear a fake product, regardless of the quality. They want the real deal beacuse it is expensive. Even if the copy is made in the same factory.

by route66 15y ago

bambax 15y ago

> You would see it justified to cash in on someone else's work after she "sold some copies"? In fact the answer to the example of Harry Potter should be that if copyright didn't exist, then it would be hard to sell any copy. Maybe some people would be able to sell printed copies, or better copies, or from a manufacturer approved by the author, etc. -- but most (electronic) copies would be available for free. The question is: would it be bad? You seem to think that it would be morally bad; I'm not sure what morals have to do with it. It would be legal. Would it be economically bad? I'm not sure either. In general, contrary to what people seem to believe, the economy benefits from cheaper goods. But the larger point is that works of the mind belong to the public. They used to be in the public domain by default. Copyright is something that is cut from the property of the general public, and given to someone as an incentive to produce more original work. The public should make sure they're getting their money's worth when granting copyright extensions. And, as it is obvious this is not the case, we should be demanding copyright reduction. When you want ten bucks, ask for a million. When you want a shorter copyright length, ask for zero.

Natsu 15y ago

> But honestly: when and why should you be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs? When the copyright expires is both the when & why. Same as Disney did when they cashed in on the original story by the Brothers Grimm. Granted, I don't expect the copyright to expire any time soon when they can retroactively extend it.

bediger 15y ago
How about in the case of "better quality mugs"? Trivial examples can often reveal important points, when examined closely. What if Disney Mugs, Inc, a solely-owned subsidiary of Giant Immoral MegaCorp, made very poor quality mugs, ones where the handles broke off? If you infringed copyright, and made unbreakable mugs, lots of parents and children would be very grateful.
- bambax 15y ago
  ... or toys with less lead in them... ;-) http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/16/toys-product-safety-biz-commerce-cx_wp_1216toxictoys_slide_9.html http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/16/toys-product-safety-biz-com...
  - bediger 15y ago
    Sure, there's a million ways to make better quality or more desirable goods. That's why the monopoly part of copyrights is undesirable from a consumer's standpoint. Goods of lower quality command higher prices when they're copyrighted or patented.

ggchappell 15y ago

> But honestly: when and why should you be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs? I think your question is backwards; it puts the burden of proof on the wrong side. Freedom is not what needs justification; rather, restrictions on freedom need justification. A better question would be, "When and why should you not be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing Disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs?" And if no adequate justification is found for restricting freedoms, then they ought not to be restricted.

Retric 15y ago

I read far more fiction produced with zero expectation of financial return than 'traditional' fiction. Sure most of it is terrible, but so are most books. When Harry Potter fan fiction outpaces the actual published books by 1,000's to 1 all it takes is a sane ranking system to find something interesting to read. If the cost of abolishing copy-write on fiction books is no fiction book would be published in any form then I would find that perfectly acceptable, because I know there are plenty of viable alternatives. So, while I think you can make a case for copy-write it's not necessary and at the extremes it's clearly harmful. Just think of how many great movies would not have been produced if if Shakespeare's plays where still under protected. You don't get to see Pride and Prejudice and Zombies in a world of unlimited copy-write. (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594743347/ref=asc_df_15947433471849115?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395093&creativeASIN=1594743347 http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594743347/ref=asc_df_1594743347184...) PS: I think a 5 year copy-write length for movies, TV shows and video games is a perfectly acceptable, but I don't think they need copy-write protection either.

geon 15y ago

> You would see it justified to cash in on someone else's work after she "sold some copies"? If I wanted to pay for her books at all, I would make sure to buy them from her, not some other random dude, who might have "improved" the story. A lot of the people who buy Nike, Fila, Adidas etc. Would never wear a fake product, regardless of the quality. They want the real deal beacuse it is expensive. Even if the copy is made in the same factory.