4 ms·

We could go a step further and make licensing mandatory. Anyone can use the work, but they have to pay a part of their profit to the originator if they do. As a

We could go a step further and make licensing mandatory. Anyone can use the work, but they have to pay a part of their profit to the originator if they do. As a side-effect this completely legalizes non-profit fan works.

xp84 3y ago
This mandatory bit sounds problematic to me. Imagine how much it would suck if you wrote and performed a song, and it was then turned into an anthem for an ideology you abhor, just by them paying a small fee (or nothing if the KKK or whoever is not a “for-profit” enterprise)
- the8472 3y ago
  Meh. Patents used in standards have similar mandatory licensing and many standards can be used for things the inventor dislikes. And you can donate the money if you find its source unpalatable.
- account42 3y ago
  What if a cooking pot you greated gets used by the KKK? Nobody cares. Or at least people accept that this kind of narcisitic control over what other people do doesn't help society. Why do you think things should be more restrictive with information?
tomatocracy 3y ago
Controlling licensing terms on non-abandoned works is evidently pretty important to creators though - think eg the ability to police GPL violations or even what Taylor Swift did by refusing to licence certain rights for use in movies/TV (thereby effectively forcing producers to use the new "Taylor's version" recordings).
- the8472 3y ago
  It's a pretty big change, so yes, some impact is unavoidable. But the GPL could still operate on the margin of free vs. mandatory fees. If the company doesn't want to go through the headache of paying each open source project it uses some fraction of the profit it makes by using it (and the necessary accounting to figure out what that profit is) then it'd still have to abide by the license.
- account42 3y ago
  Is that relevant though? The point of copyright is not to fulfil whatever desires creators have but to encourage more creation overall.

xp84 3y ago

This mandatory bit sounds problematic to me. Imagine how much it would suck if you wrote and performed a song, and it was then turned into an anthem for an ideology you abhor, just by them paying a small fee (or nothing if the KKK or whoever is not a “for-profit” enterprise)

the8472 3y ago
Meh. Patents used in standards have similar mandatory licensing and many standards can be used for things the inventor dislikes. And you can donate the money if you find its source unpalatable.
account42 3y ago
What if a cooking pot you greated gets used by the KKK? Nobody cares. Or at least people accept that this kind of narcisitic control over what other people do doesn't help society. Why do you think things should be more restrictive with information?

tomatocracy 3y ago

Controlling licensing terms on non-abandoned works is evidently pretty important to creators though - think eg the ability to police GPL violations or even what Taylor Swift did by refusing to licence certain rights for use in movies/TV (thereby effectively forcing producers to use the new "Taylor's version" recordings).

the8472 3y ago
It's a pretty big change, so yes, some impact is unavoidable. But the GPL could still operate on the margin of free vs. mandatory fees. If the company doesn't want to go through the headache of paying each open source project it uses some fraction of the profit it makes by using it (and the necessary accounting to figure out what that profit is) then it'd still have to abide by the license.
account42 3y ago
Is that relevant though? The point of copyright is not to fulfil whatever desires creators have but to encourage more creation overall.