> Disney doesn't make a second season, they make an entirely new show that uses the brand and appeal of the character. They frame it as being "the foundation" or "the original."
Framing it as the original is false advertisement and illegal. Just because you get to use another's creative work doesn't mean you get to lie about who made what when.
Is the brand and appeal of the characters the only value of the original work? If you made a bad show but with some appealing characters, is it even a problem if they are used to produce a much better work? I mean, surely for you who made the bad work, but in this case this doesn't seem like that much of an injustice.
> Because the amount of resources available to Disney is orders of magnitude larger than random John Doe, and thus the potential revenue and audience is larger.
I don't really feel like that answers my question, obviously they can afford it. If their new show really is better then it makes sense to boost the brand, but if the premise is that the independent creator came up with something new and good that the rich capitalist cannot replicate with their lack of creativity and thus can only exploit, then it seems like a waste of money to even bother.
> When it comes to big brands, the average person doesn't care about the author. People go watch Disney or Pixar movies because the brand is well-known and the product is widely marketed. No one cares who the creators are.
Okay, but then why even bother with copying? If people don't care about the branding of the original product, what is gained by copying that brand? If I never heard of Goatman then I wouldn't care for Disney's version of Goatman (except if what I care about is Disney's brand and then Goatman is immaterial). Or if literally all that is copied is that idea of having a half-goat half-man have wonderful woodland adventures full of charm and wit, then I'm not sure if anything of value has really been copied.
> You, John Doe, are, as there is now considerable confusion in the marketplace and you will be less able to capitalize on your creation and expand it into a media franchise.
Or you, John Doe, are publicly recognized as the original creator of Goatman (as to claim otherwise would be either false advertising or outright fraud), drawing attention to the original vision, and if the original vision is actually better than the copies, to profit from it.
As John Doe though, I don't know about all that "media franchise" part. Certainly my skills are limited to Writing, Animation and Character Design, I've never actually designed a toy line and so have nothing to offer there.
> There are still issues with blatantly copying works in a way that is confusing to the consumer.
This I fully agree with, transparency, clarity, correct and clear attribution are all incredibly important and should be protected by law. It is also no accident that many people know who Toby Fox or Notch are, but no one can name say the lead designer of any Ubisoft game that outsold Undertale by 100x.
> Let's use a real-world example to illustrate the point better. Imagine that we have no copyright laws. J.K. Rowling writes the first Harry Potter book and it sells well. She only received 2500 pounds as an advance for the work. The publisher (or Disney, or whatever other company) realizes they have a winning franchise on their hands, commissions more books, movies, theme park rides, on and on. It eventually earns billions of dollars.
> That all happened in real life, except we do have some copyright laws and Rowling earns a percentage of whatever profits come from the use of her creation. She is now a billionaire. In a world without those laws, she gets what, a few hundred thousands dollars in sales from the first book, maybe? The rest goes to some corporation.
Thank you for a concrete and detailed example, I feel it really helps me understand your reasoning. (Sorry if that comes across sarcastic via the medium of HN comments, I mean it sincerely)
Let's say that the first book was published and was a great success. JKR's publisher sees the opportunity and contracts out the work to author the 2nd Harry Potter book, hoping to capitalize on the first's success. At the same time JKR either crowdfunds or contacts another publisher to work on the sequel. The audience who loved the original book then gets to make a choice between reading JKRs sequel which has a large sticker on it "From the same author as Harry Potter!" or a different sequel with a smaller sticker at the legally mandated font required for liability that says "Consumer Protection Alert: This book was not written by the author of the original prequel". Which do they choose? And if they chose and preferred the non-JKR sequel, then what exactly is the problem? And why isn't the contracted author publishing their own books, given they can out-write JKR?
As for making billions of dollars off of movies and theme parks - sure. JKR would not have made billions. But then, neither would anyone else. Theme park builders would all have to compete for building the actually best Harry Potter theme park instead of licensing a monopoly and so the only theme park builder making real money would be the one that creates the best theme park. Possibly, one of them would even pay JKR to advise in the creation of the park, so they could advertise it as "From the original author of Harry Potter!", and if JKRs branding as the author of Harry Potter was worthwhile, that would still be a lot of money. Certainly this is better for the public. And as certainly, this wouldn't have prevented the creation of Harry Potter in the first place, because JKR is an author and not a theme park builder, and even if motivated by money rather than creativity, could not possibly imagine a Harry Potter theme park as motivation for her work.
And to take it one step further, once JKR has made billions from her work, is there really an appreciable difference between the gigantic Disney corporation and the gigantic JKR estate? Is there any appreciable difference between JKR paying someone to produce a Harry Potter work (whether a book or a Theme Park) that has no creative input from her (and thus hardly her own work) vs. Disney currently underpaying someone for their work and giving them no (or negligible) credit.
Beyond that, Eliezer Yudkowsky could start making money off of the hard work and creativity he put into Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, and countless other similar smaller authors (that you never heard of, because their brilliant Harry Potter fanfiction is non-monetisable) could also start benefiting from their creativity and hard work.
Thinking about it further and trying to synthesize a more coherent view from both of our arguments, it seems that we don't disagree that people will tend to spend on brands, but it is your opinion that the "Harry Potter" brand is a much stronger brand the the "J.K. Rowling" brand, or that at least via the power of marketing, large corporations will bring forward the "Harry Potter" brand in prominence over the "J.K. Rowling" brand (which incidentally, is something they already do), and since the "Harry Potter" brand is (sort of) free for all without copyright, then they would win over JKR. I don't think it would work quite like that for a few reasons.
1. If we assume that "piracy" is legal, then surely people will feel a lot more guilty "pirating" from a real person brand like JKR than from an abstract "Harry Potter" brand or a "Disney" brand.
2. If people can choose how to spend their money between the different works they enjoy, then it is a much more appealing proposition to pay for something that would not otherwise exist (e.g. small author on KS) as otherwise they would not actually get to enjoy the work. Giving money to Disney that is already swimming in money is a waste.
3. To emphasize the previous point, people can already pirate almost any work they want. Obviously, if it was legal and easy, there would be more piracy, but all the same some people would still pay. What do you think would motivate those people to pay for something they could obtain freely?
4. If people choose to spend money on Disney works that they could cheaply obtain elsewhere, then surely that is because Disney produces consistently high quality and enjoyable works and those creative efforts are worthwhile and deserve compensation.
5. If Disney were to copy the idea of Goatman I proposed above I don't think anyone would object to that given how little my idea matters compared to the actual creative work of making the Goatman show.
I can't possibly reply to every point in a comment this long.
To summarize my reply, I'll just say this: no, Disney making billions from something they didn't create is not equivalent to its creator making those billions. Fanfiction is not equivalent to actual, geniunely good creative works, and "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" is a bad joke, not a serious argument for copyright reform. Everything else in your scenario would make the marketplace more confused, more derivative, and less beneficial to original creators. Enforcing all of these other various laws you propose sounds more egregious and difficult than just enforcing current copyright laws.
I really don't see how any of this is supposed to be an improvement over the current situation, and frankly I don't quite understand how "more fanfiction" and "I don't have to pay for stuff" is supposed to be a compelling argument.
>Framing it as the original is false advertisement and illegal. Just because you get to use another's creative work doesn't mean you get to lie about who made what when.
I mean, they just market it as "the TRUE story of the Satyr, the Goatman" or whatever. Goatman hybrid is a very old (and fortunately, public domain) idea. Marketing even with today's restrictions has 1000 ways around such issues.
>Is the brand and appeal of the characters the only value of the original work?
not only, but it is a big pull. It may even be the main pull when talking about a young child audience. That's how existing dubious Disney clones operate right now.
> is it even a problem if they are used to produce a much better work?
That's the sad part. it doesn't have to be better, it just needs to market well and sell merch. I don't think it's controversial to say we're in a world where the highest quality art isn't the most profitable.
But regardless of quality, yes. Morally it is a problem when someone who made an idea successful isn't reaping its reward. Because a corporation stole the idea and threw more marketing at it. it would only intensify the starving artist trope.
>and good that the rich capitalist cannot replicate with their lack of creativity and thus can only exploit, then it seems like a waste of money to even bother.
yes, that is the point. EVERYTHING would be a waste of money because everything can be mass produced or mass marketed. But not everyone can mass market nor produce goods, that's where corporations always win.
We see that right now with modern art. albums don't make music artist rich, tours and merch do. Cartoons don't make animators rich, merchandise does (and the animators barely get that). Video games seem to be the only medium that can self-fund itself, but that industry is just as much a gamble as every other art. a few make it big, most suffer, be it indie or AAA studios. I don't see a copyright free world doing anything but making this issue worse.
>If people don't care about the branding of the original product, what is gained by copying that brand?
money? The brand matters, the creator doesn't. Very few creators are a brand in and of themselves, even creators of otherwise iconic brands (Many know Walt Disney, but probably not the creative mind behind Looney Toons, nor Scooby Doo, nor Tom and Jerry. But all 3 of these IP's have lived for decades past the creators' deaths to extract more profits).
so if you're not a marketing whiz who wants to plaster your name on every single thing you touch, you will be out-marketed for your brand through brute force. Even if you are a brand, it won't be easy in this new world.
>The audience who loved the original book then gets to make a choice between reading JKRs sequel which has a large sticker on it "From the same author as Harry Potter!" or a different sequel with a smaller sticker at the legally mandated font required for liability that says "Consumer Protection Alert: This book was not written by the author of the original prequel". Which do they choose?
In reality, the storyline splits, and you just create two camps of enthusiasts, neither of which are the main money makers for the books. And then a 3rd and 4th camp of casual readers who are confused when discussing the story with each other (just because a sticker is mandated doesn't mean the won't try to muddy the marketing in other ways).
Odds are the mandated non-Rowling work will STILL sell better if it's marketed more, can reach more stores, and otherwise has more copies printed. That's the big issue with the idea here; diehards tend to be the kinds of people in such discussions but are a minority in the market. And many seem to fall under the just world fallacy that everyone will think like diehards and buy the "best" book if given a choice. I'm not as assured. Many marketing tricks today would fail if people thought that way. So that's where the govt. has to step in to protect the creator, in the interest of ensuring future creators aren't discouraged and stagnate the market. Or worse, ends up with a monopoly which would be much harder to break up.
>And to take it one step further, once JKR has made billions from her work, is there really an appreciable difference between the gigantic Disney corporation and the gigantic JKR estate?
a magnitude of difference yes. Rowling is worth 1b, Disney 165b. Sure, Rowling can now become the very corporation she was shunned away from when pitching her first book, but she "fortunately" seems more content being angry on Twitter instead of exploiting artists that way.
I get what you mean, but I think the discussion on how much money a creator can/should make on a work is a taxation issue, not a copyright issue.
>I don't think it would work quite like that for a few reasons.
well, to address your points:
1,2) no, not really. to go back to video games, I'm pretty sure indie devs have worse piracy rates than AAA games riddled with DRM. Again, I'm not confident that the goodwill of the masses wins out here. People overall simply don't care abut the creator, just the content and their own self gratification
3) Funnily enough I will go back to the argument people love to bring out for piracy: "Piracy is a service problem - Gabe Newell". In some ways I agree, it's hard to be "free, easily downloadable, freely sharable" content. But due to copyright, piracy is much clunkier than it can be.
- Has to be semi-hidden so not everyone knows about it, nor how easy it can be
- Piracy sites have their own agendas so they take in the seediest of ads. Some near malware. No one wants to risk downloading a $10 movie if there's a risk of ruining their OS with viruses
- Torrents are very complicated for common users compared to simply pressing "download". seeder/leecher relationships make download speeds weird (and you may not even be aware of what THAT is), you can download a torrent file which isn't the media itself, and downloading files itself is "messy" on a bare bones OS. Among other reasons. So it's a lot of hoops that gives a smooth seemless service a chance to prevail
All this goes out the window if pirates don't have to hide. Imagine Plex linked with Bittorrent in the backend powering a download service, in one seemless package, available on the App Store, Google Play, and downloadable on all desktop OS's. You pretty much solve the service issue outright, and any shortcomings can be made up for by being completely free. No premium service can compete if they can't litigate.
This is all very possible to setup yourself, but not everyone has the ability and few have the patience to keep it maintained. They will throw $10/month at a streaming service instead. Ultimately, litigation keeps piracy clunky enough that services can outcompete on convinience.
4) but again, Disney isn't out qualitying competition (especially not nowadays), they are out-marketing. Especially out-marketing the cheap knockoffs who are comparatively playing penny slots by having a few copies in the wal-mart bargain bin. There was a point where your point was true, but that hasn't been the case for decades.
5) only the creator would. And if you don't then no one else will. But that's how the world works; no one cares about you, the creator. You need to care about yourself to survive in the industry. The government doesn't care neither, but you can exploit their bottom line to help protect yourself.
Or idk, maybe you already won the lottery and can afford to be leeched off. most others can't. People would care less if they didn't need to work to live, but most do.