6 ms·

The concept that you call “dodgy” is actually fundamental to copyright. If you remove the idea of derivative works, the entire system that encourages innovation

The concept that you call “dodgy” is actually fundamental to copyright. If you remove the idea of derivative works, the entire system that encourages innovation by protecting intellectual property (yes, the same system that gave us computing and ML) falls apart.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
The one that encourages innovation by allowing copyrighted works to stay copyrighted for 100+ years? That's a long time to wait for something to build on something!
- anileated 3y ago
  We’ve been building on top of each other’s work in the open-source software ecosystem and in science this entire time. Also, there are licensing models that specifically allow derivative works.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    Unfortunately nobody told Marvel, Disney, and the Tolkien estate about it, so we'll have to wait until we're all dead before being able to build ontop of the cultural works that defined our childhoods.
    - anileated 3y ago
      Don’t worry, you can always be inspired by them and make something of your own.
      - vintermann 3y ago
        You can if you have a well-connected lawyer.
        anileated 3y ago
        No, you simply can. You just cannot piggy back off the actual names they used.
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        "Something" sure. But I can't make something set in Middle Earth (I can't even say the word hobbit, ask D&D how that went), I can't write and sell my own Spiderman comics, I'd have a hard time writing my own Cinderella story without Disney breathing down my neck. This is a very different reality from the "We’ve been building on top of each other’s work in the open-source software ecosystem and in science this entire time".
        anileated 3y ago
        You are trying to pass off some arbitrary thing for “building on top of”. I can use all the benefits of Linux to deliver a SaaS (like 99% of us do), I just can’t call my SaaS “Linux Something”. You can use all the ideas Tolkien used in your own creative work. You just can’t call them things he called them for now. > I can't make something set in Middle Earth (I can't even say the word hobbit, ask D&D how that went), I can't write and sell my own Spiderman comics, I'd have a hard time writing my own Cinderella story without Disney breathing down my neck There is no creative reason to do those things. The only reason is to commercially profit by piggying back off the big names. Copyright works as intended.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        > for now. for now, the last 80 years, and until easily 2040. > I can use all the benefits of Linux to deliver a SaaS > You can use all the ideas Tolkien used in your own creative work. You just can’t call them things he called That's quite a bait and switch. You don't have to rewrite a linux kernel, or gcc, or whatever language you wish to use in order to make your SaaS. You aren't limited to using the "idea" of a linked-list, a hashmap, or HTTP, and have to reimplement it yourself from scratch. But that's exactly what you're proposing for literature. I can't build on the idea of Spiderman by making ArachnidMan, a crimefighting superhero who got pinched by a electromagnectic spider without wondering "Is today the day Marvel sues me into the ground". And I absolutely cannot write my own Spiderman comics. > There is no creative reason to do those things. The only reason is to commercially profit by piggying back off the big names. Copyright works as intended. In the US at least, copyright comes from a clause which states that laws can be passed "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The only thing the current system is promoting is the concentration of copyright into large corporations (see music labels) and locking people out of the cultural artifacts that define their life (Disney gets to take public domain stories, but a slight twist, and copyright them for 100+ years). What there is no creative reason is the way that the system is currently set up. All that exist as blatant money and power-grab reasons.
joquarky 3y ago
The reason copyright is so contentious and inherently evokes "dodgy" solutions is that it goes against the flow of nature.
- anileated 3y ago
  Painting something you dislike as “against nature” is the lazy way out and not a real argument. Humans are part of nature. Property rights are necessarily part of nature too, by extension. It can’t go “against” the flow of nature when it is the flow of nature.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

The one that encourages innovation by allowing copyrighted works to stay copyrighted for 100+ years? That's a long time to wait for something to build on something!

anileated 3y ago
We’ve been building on top of each other’s work in the open-source software ecosystem and in science this entire time. Also, there are licensing models that specifically allow derivative works.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  Unfortunately nobody told Marvel, Disney, and the Tolkien estate about it, so we'll have to wait until we're all dead before being able to build ontop of the cultural works that defined our childhoods.
  - anileated 3y ago
    Don’t worry, you can always be inspired by them and make something of your own.
    - vintermann 3y ago
      You can if you have a well-connected lawyer.
      - anileated 3y ago
        No, you simply can. You just cannot piggy back off the actual names they used.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      "Something" sure. But I can't make something set in Middle Earth (I can't even say the word hobbit, ask D&D how that went), I can't write and sell my own Spiderman comics, I'd have a hard time writing my own Cinderella story without Disney breathing down my neck. This is a very different reality from the "We’ve been building on top of each other’s work in the open-source software ecosystem and in science this entire time".
      - anileated 3y ago
        You are trying to pass off some arbitrary thing for “building on top of”. I can use all the benefits of Linux to deliver a SaaS (like 99% of us do), I just can’t call my SaaS “Linux Something”. You can use all the ideas Tolkien used in your own creative work. You just can’t call them things he called them for now. > I can't make something set in Middle Earth (I can't even say the word hobbit, ask D&D how that went), I can't write and sell my own Spiderman comics, I'd have a hard time writing my own Cinderella story without Disney breathing down my neck There is no creative reason to do those things. The only reason is to commercially profit by piggying back off the big names. Copyright works as intended.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        > for now. for now, the last 80 years, and until easily 2040. > I can use all the benefits of Linux to deliver a SaaS > You can use all the ideas Tolkien used in your own creative work. You just can’t call them things he called That's quite a bait and switch. You don't have to rewrite a linux kernel, or gcc, or whatever language you wish to use in order to make your SaaS. You aren't limited to using the "idea" of a linked-list, a hashmap, or HTTP, and have to reimplement it yourself from scratch. But that's exactly what you're proposing for literature. I can't build on the idea of Spiderman by making ArachnidMan, a crimefighting superhero who got pinched by a electromagnectic spider without wondering "Is today the day Marvel sues me into the ground". And I absolutely cannot write my own Spiderman comics. > There is no creative reason to do those things. The only reason is to commercially profit by piggying back off the big names. Copyright works as intended. In the US at least, copyright comes from a clause which states that laws can be passed "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The only thing the current system is promoting is the concentration of copyright into large corporations (see music labels) and locking people out of the cultural artifacts that define their life (Disney gets to take public domain stories, but a slight twist, and copyright them for 100+ years). What there is no creative reason is the way that the system is currently set up. All that exist as blatant money and power-grab reasons.

joquarky 3y ago

The reason copyright is so contentious and inherently evokes "dodgy" solutions is that it goes against the flow of nature.

anileated 3y ago
Painting something you dislike as “against nature” is the lazy way out and not a real argument. Humans are part of nature. Property rights are necessarily part of nature too, by extension. It can’t go “against” the flow of nature when it is the flow of nature.