3 ms·
Excellent comparison because the implementation details of free speech are far from obvious and have been constantly tuned and tweaked over the centuries. (“Lib
by pavlov 3y ago
Excellent comparison because the implementation details of free speech are far from obvious and have been constantly tuned and tweaked over the centuries. (“Liberty” isn’t any specific right.)
It’s easy to pick an example that you consider benevolent and harmless. But have you considered that authors simply may not want their work included in a Simpsons meme generator?
Samuel Beckett dictated the set design for his plays to every last detail. Because of long copyright, you still can’t perform your own version of “En attendant Godot” today. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing. But I have to respect Beckett’s obsessive creative vision and that the law doesn’t let me (or Disney) make our own versions of Godot yet.
Re: your edit —
You wouldn’t have written the books I’m selling on Kindle in your name. So by the same logic that there’s no harm to authors when Meta and Google and OpenAI sell products derived from pirated books, there’s no harm to you when I use your name for my own ventures.
Sillysaurusx created a database whose only appeal is that it contains works by famous authors. This is not fundamentally different from me writing a book in your name.
- hnfong 3y ago> But have you considered that authors simply may not want their work included in a Simpsons meme generator? Ironically copyright law seems to explicitly allow this under fair use for parody... I totally understand that authors need to put food on the table, and economic rights are important. What I don't get is why we should worry that some author might be unhappy that their works end up in a meme. It seems to be the last thing we should worry about in the grand scheme of things.
- jazzyjackson 3y agoit's not explicit, it has to be argued in court whether it was a parody or not see: 2 Live Crew's cover of Pretty Woman ending up in the supreme court https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html
- hnfong 3y agothe law is explicit, the application of such is of course subject to interpretation of the facts
- jrflowers 3y ago>(“Liberty” isn’t any specific right.) > But have you considered that authors simply may not want their work included in a Simpsons meme generator? “Liberty” isn’t a right. What is the word that you would use to describe the specific right to have your possible wishes be enforced as a matter of law? I’m fascinated to learn that rights (which are universal) include the right to stop anyone from doing anything I don’t like. Edit: Wait what > Samuel Beckett dictated the set design for his plays to every last detail. Because of long copyright, you still can’t perform your own version of “En attendant Godot” today. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing. But I have to respect Beckett’s obsessive creative vision and that the law doesn’t let me (or Disney) make our own versions of Godot yet. You believe that your inability to perform Godot extends from a moral right? I am assuming you wouldn’t bring up moral rights and then immediately point out that you’re actually talking about your untested interpretation of a law that you don’t actually find to be just.
- pavlov 3y ago> “You believe that your inability to perform Godot extends from a moral right?” Yes, absolutely. “Moral rights” in this context is a specific term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights It includes “the right to the integrity of the work”, which is how the Beckett estate prevents me from making my own set design for “Godot” even if I pay for the rights to perform the piece.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hnfong 3y agoIf we're talking about law the discussion is meaningless unless and until the jurisdiction is explicitly stated. Moral rights are dealt with differently in different jurisdictions.