4 ms·

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 ca

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.
- anileated 3y ago
  > for now, the last 80 years, and until easily 2040. Let it be until the end of the universe, please. What kind of creative are you anyway if you don’t want to do your own world-building? > 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. That was exactly to show you how copyright doesn’t prevent us from building on top of things, but instead fuels innovation. IP protections is how one guy can say “you must always provide your source if you use my work” and have it quickly grow into a massive ecosystem on which most of today’s Internet runs to this day. Open-source licensing can only exist thanks to copyright and the idea of derivative works in particular. 1. In order to license something, you have to be able to enforce it legally, and for that you have to be the author, which is what copyright means. 2. In order to encourage others to use your library but also ensure they contribute back if they make changes, you need to talk about the concept of a work that is based on your work, and that is—drumroll—a derivative work. > "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" If you are saying that allowing any writer to be able to take the world someone else built and profit off its fame with minimal modifications is somehow promoting progress of the arts, then I don’t know what to say to you.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    > What kind of creative are you anyway if you don’t want to do your own world-building? A no true creative. What kind of creative needs lifetime + 70 years of monopoly on an idea? > If you are saying that allowing any writer to be able to take the world someone else built and profit off its fame with minimal modifications is somehow promoting progress of the arts, then I don’t know what to say to you. I am not. I am saying that the current way it's implemented is broken. Tolkein has earned more than enough money off of LOTR, it's far past the time for it to enter the public domain and join the stories that he build his work on. Many of Disney's earlier movies are retelling of folktales. Tolkein in addition to creating parts of his world build on top of existing folktales. Neither would be where they are now if someone was able to impose the kind of restrictions on them that they themselves now impose on us.

_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.

anileated 3y ago
> for now, the last 80 years, and until easily 2040. Let it be until the end of the universe, please. What kind of creative are you anyway if you don’t want to do your own world-building? > 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. That was exactly to show you how copyright doesn’t prevent us from building on top of things, but instead fuels innovation. IP protections is how one guy can say “you must always provide your source if you use my work” and have it quickly grow into a massive ecosystem on which most of today’s Internet runs to this day. Open-source licensing can only exist thanks to copyright and the idea of derivative works in particular. 1. In order to license something, you have to be able to enforce it legally, and for that you have to be the author, which is what copyright means. 2. In order to encourage others to use your library but also ensure they contribute back if they make changes, you need to talk about the concept of a work that is based on your work, and that is—drumroll—a derivative work. > "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" If you are saying that allowing any writer to be able to take the world someone else built and profit off its fame with minimal modifications is somehow promoting progress of the arts, then I don’t know what to say to you.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  > What kind of creative are you anyway if you don’t want to do your own world-building? A no true creative. What kind of creative needs lifetime + 70 years of monopoly on an idea? > If you are saying that allowing any writer to be able to take the world someone else built and profit off its fame with minimal modifications is somehow promoting progress of the arts, then I don’t know what to say to you. I am not. I am saying that the current way it's implemented is broken. Tolkein has earned more than enough money off of LOTR, it's far past the time for it to enter the public domain and join the stories that he build his work on. Many of Disney's earlier movies are retelling of folktales. Tolkein in addition to creating parts of his world build on top of existing folktales. Neither would be where they are now if someone was able to impose the kind of restrictions on them that they themselves now impose on us.