4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- anileated 3y ago
  I don’t know whether Tolkien’s estate should or should not keep profiting from his work, but I don’t see why this should be forbidden. If anything, we probably have so much great work coming out because people want to repeat the success of great masters and achieve fame and wealth that are possible thanks to IP protections. Make a cool world and license its use semi-openly, be the change you want to see? Just keep in mind that if your world is openly licensed, it will quickly go out of your control and likely in a direction you (or your family, when you’re dead) may find repulsive. Also, I think you would have to be comfortable that if the next guy writes something based on your hard work and gets a Netflix deal tomorrow you may find it difficult to do something about it. > 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. Anything you say, write, do, etc., is technically based on everything done before you. So now we should eschew the idea of intellectual property and the progress it brought. Got it!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    > I don’t know whether Tolkien’s estate should or should not keep profiting from his work, but I don’t see why this should be forbidden. Because you and I are arguing, or at least I am arguing, about the duration over which they should keep profiting off of it. I claim that it's self evidence that a copyright that never expires and is transferable is self evidently bad (companies will end up having monopoly rights to every idea, see their concentration of money). And I further argue that the current length for copyright also problematic. the current life of author + 70 years is ridiculously long time for a monopoly. It's gotten to that length not because starving artists need it, but precisely because unimaginative large corporations found it easier to extend the copyright on their existing IP than to image something news. > Make a cool world and license its use semi-openly, be the change you want to see? But even if you choose not to because you wish to monetize your work, that's fine by me. But lifetime + 70 years is too long of a time. My thought is that we should have it be non-transferable, no more having authors and musicians sign their copyright away for a pittance. At it should be capped at something like 30 years or 20 million dollars, whichever comes first. Gives people time to monetize their idea, and if 30 years wasn't enough time, no amount of time will be enough because nobody's looking at your work. And the amount of works that earn over 20 million dollars is a rounding error; you get to be rich, and then the rest of us get to remix your work. > Just keep in mind that if your world is openly licensed, it will quickly go out of your control and likely in a direction you (or your family, when you’re dead) may find repulsive. Also, I think you would have to be comfortable that if the next guy writes something based on your hard work and gets a Netflix deal tomorrow you may find it difficult to do something about it. Both of these I find acceptable. Firstly it's my work only in the sense that I was the one who made it, not it the sense that it belongs to me. Copyright doesn't mean that I own the idea, it only gives me a monopoly on monetizing and distributing the idea. Secondly, this is exactly how open source projects work. The parallel you drew earlier to open source work comes back here. You have no control over what people make or do with your open source licensed project, all you enforce is what requirements they have to share the code (this quickly becomes a semantic discussion). The GPLv3 and APGLv3 licenses, which people derogatorily label as "viral", does not even attempt to limit you from making money off the code, all it does is require you to allow everyone else to access the changes you make to it and code you built off it.

_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.

anileated 3y ago
I don’t know whether Tolkien’s estate should or should not keep profiting from his work, but I don’t see why this should be forbidden. If anything, we probably have so much great work coming out because people want to repeat the success of great masters and achieve fame and wealth that are possible thanks to IP protections. Make a cool world and license its use semi-openly, be the change you want to see? Just keep in mind that if your world is openly licensed, it will quickly go out of your control and likely in a direction you (or your family, when you’re dead) may find repulsive. Also, I think you would have to be comfortable that if the next guy writes something based on your hard work and gets a Netflix deal tomorrow you may find it difficult to do something about it. > 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. Anything you say, write, do, etc., is technically based on everything done before you. So now we should eschew the idea of intellectual property and the progress it brought. Got it!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  > I don’t know whether Tolkien’s estate should or should not keep profiting from his work, but I don’t see why this should be forbidden. Because you and I are arguing, or at least I am arguing, about the duration over which they should keep profiting off of it. I claim that it's self evidence that a copyright that never expires and is transferable is self evidently bad (companies will end up having monopoly rights to every idea, see their concentration of money). And I further argue that the current length for copyright also problematic. the current life of author + 70 years is ridiculously long time for a monopoly. It's gotten to that length not because starving artists need it, but precisely because unimaginative large corporations found it easier to extend the copyright on their existing IP than to image something news. > Make a cool world and license its use semi-openly, be the change you want to see? But even if you choose not to because you wish to monetize your work, that's fine by me. But lifetime + 70 years is too long of a time. My thought is that we should have it be non-transferable, no more having authors and musicians sign their copyright away for a pittance. At it should be capped at something like 30 years or 20 million dollars, whichever comes first. Gives people time to monetize their idea, and if 30 years wasn't enough time, no amount of time will be enough because nobody's looking at your work. And the amount of works that earn over 20 million dollars is a rounding error; you get to be rich, and then the rest of us get to remix your work. > Just keep in mind that if your world is openly licensed, it will quickly go out of your control and likely in a direction you (or your family, when you’re dead) may find repulsive. Also, I think you would have to be comfortable that if the next guy writes something based on your hard work and gets a Netflix deal tomorrow you may find it difficult to do something about it. Both of these I find acceptable. Firstly it's my work only in the sense that I was the one who made it, not it the sense that it belongs to me. Copyright doesn't mean that I own the idea, it only gives me a monopoly on monetizing and distributing the idea. Secondly, this is exactly how open source projects work. The parallel you drew earlier to open source work comes back here. You have no control over what people make or do with your open source licensed project, all you enforce is what requirements they have to share the code (this quickly becomes a semantic discussion). The GPLv3 and APGLv3 licenses, which people derogatorily label as "viral", does not even attempt to limit you from making money off the code, all it does is require you to allow everyone else to access the changes you make to it and code you built off it.