6 ms·

Because the concept of owning an idea is really gross. Copyright means I can’t write about whatever I want in my own home even if I never distribute it or no on

Because the concept of owning an idea is really gross. Copyright means I can’t write about whatever I want in my own home even if I never distribute it or no one ever sees it. I’m breaking the law by privately writing Harry Potter fanfic in my journal or whatever. Copyright is supposed to be about encouraging intangibles, and the reality is that it only massively stifles it

redwall_hp 1y ago
Whole genres of music are based entirely on sampling, and they got screwed by copyright law as it evolved over the 90s and 2000s. Now only people with a sufficiently sized business backing them can truly participate, or they're stuck licensing things on Splice. And that's not even touching the spurious lawsuits about musical similarity. That's what musicians call a genre... It makes some sense for a very short term literal right to reproduction of a singular work, but any time the concept of derivative works comes into play, it's just a bizarrely dystopian suppression of art, under the supposition that art is commercial activity rather than an innate part of humanity.
flats 1y ago
I don’t believe this is true? I’m pretty sure that you’re prohibited from making money from that fan fiction, not from writing it at all. So I don’t understand the claim that copyright “massively stifles” creativity. There are of course examples of people not being able to make money on specific “ideas” because of copyright laws, but that doesn’t seem to me to be “massively stifling” creativity itself, especially given that it also protects and supports many people generating these ideas. And if we got rid of copyright law, wouldn’t we be in that exact place, where people wouldn’t be allowed to make money off of creative endeavors? I mean, owning an idea is kinda gross, I agree. I also personally think that owning land is kinda gross. But we live in a capitalist society right now. If we allow AI companies to train LLMs on copyrighted works without paying for that access, we are choosing to reward these companies instead of the humans who created the data upon which these companies are utterly reliant for said LLMs. Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and all the other tech CEOs will benefit in place of all of the artists I love and admire. That, to me, sucks.
- Zambyte 1y ago
  > And if we got rid of copyright law, wouldn’t we be in that exact place, where people wouldn’t be allowed to make money off of creative endeavors? This is addressed in the second article I linked.
  - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
    Is it though? All I see is hand-waving.
- 93po 1y ago
  Copyright isn't about distribution, it's about creation. In reality the chances of getting in trouble is basically zero if you don't distribute it - who would know? But technically any creation, even in private, is violating copyright. Doesn't matter if you make money or put it on the internet. There is fair use, but fair is an affirmative defense to infringing copyright. By claiming fair use you are simultaneously admitting infringement. The idea that you have to defend your own private expression of ideas based on other ideas is still wrong in my view.
  - Zambyte 1y ago
    > Copyright isn't about distribution, it's about creation This is exactly wrong. You can copy all of Harry Potter into your journal as many times as you want legally (creating copies) so long as you do not distribute it.
    - whamlastxmas 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St... "copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly" "The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to do and authorize others to do the following: To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;To prepare derivative works based upon the work;" "Commonly, this involves someone creating or distributing" https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ "U.S. copyright law provides copyright owners with the following exclusive rights: Reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. Prepare derivative works based upon the work." https://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/students/intellectual-property-guide-uc-berkeley-graduate-students/copyrights-protecting-creators https://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/students/intellectu... "Copyright infringement occurs when a work is reproduced, distributed, displayed, performed or altered without the creator’s permission." There are endless legitimate sources for this. Copyright protects many things, not just distribution. It very clearly disallows the creation and production of copyrighted works.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
otterley 1y ago
Copyright doesn’t protect ideas. It protects expression of those ideas. Consider how many books exist on how to care for trees. Each one of them has similar ideas, but the way those ideas are expressed differ. Copyright protects the content of the book; it doesn’t protect the ideas of how to care for trees.
- 93po 1y ago
  Disney has a copyright over Moana. I would argue Moana is an idea in the sense that most people think of as ideas. Moana isn't tangle, it's not a physical good. It's not a plate on my table. It only exists in our heads. If I made a Moana comic book, with an entirely original storyline and original art and it was all drawn in my own style and not using 3D assets similar to their movies, that is violating copyright. Moana is an idea and there are a million ways to express the established character Moana, and Moana itself is an idea built on a million things that Disney doesn't have any rights to - history, culture, tropes, etc. I understand what you're saying but the way you're framing it isn't what I really have a problem with. I still don't agree with the idea that I can't make my own physical copies of Harry Potters books, identical word for word. I think people can choose to buy the physical books from the original publisher because they want to support them or like the idea that it's the "true" physical copy. And I'm going to push back on that a million times less than the concept of things like Moana comic books. But still, it's infringing copyright for me to make Moana comic books in my own home, in private, and never showing them to anyone. And that's ridiculous.
  - otterley 1y ago
    > [Moana] only exists in our heads. Moana and Moana 2 are both animated movies that have already been made. They're not just figures of one's imagination. > If I made a Moana comic book, with an entirely original storyline and original art and it was all drawn in my own style and not using 3D assets similar to their movies, that is violating copyright It might be, or it might not. Copyright protects the creation of derivative works (17 USC 101, 17 USC 103, 17 USC 106), but it's the copyright holder's burden to persuade the court that the allegedly infringing work with the character Moana in it is derivative of their protected work. Ask yourself the question: what is the value of Moana to you in this hypothetical? What if you used a different name for the character and the character had a different backstory and personality? > I still don't agree with the idea that I can't make my own physical copies of Harry Potters books You might think differently if you had sunk thousands of hours into creating a new novel and creative work was your primary form of income. > But still, it's infringing copyright for me to make Moana comic books in my own home, in private, and never showing them to anyone. It seems unlikely that Disney is would go after you for that. Kids do it all the time.

redwall_hp 1y ago

Whole genres of music are based entirely on sampling, and they got screwed by copyright law as it evolved over the 90s and 2000s. Now only people with a sufficiently sized business backing them can truly participate, or they're stuck licensing things on Splice. And that's not even touching the spurious lawsuits about musical similarity. That's what musicians call a genre... It makes some sense for a very short term literal right to reproduction of a singular work, but any time the concept of derivative works comes into play, it's just a bizarrely dystopian suppression of art, under the supposition that art is commercial activity rather than an innate part of humanity.

flats 1y ago

I don’t believe this is true? I’m pretty sure that you’re prohibited from making money from that fan fiction, not from writing it at all. So I don’t understand the claim that copyright “massively stifles” creativity. There are of course examples of people not being able to make money on specific “ideas” because of copyright laws, but that doesn’t seem to me to be “massively stifling” creativity itself, especially given that it also protects and supports many people generating these ideas. And if we got rid of copyright law, wouldn’t we be in that exact place, where people wouldn’t be allowed to make money off of creative endeavors? I mean, owning an idea is kinda gross, I agree. I also personally think that owning land is kinda gross. But we live in a capitalist society right now. If we allow AI companies to train LLMs on copyrighted works without paying for that access, we are choosing to reward these companies instead of the humans who created the data upon which these companies are utterly reliant for said LLMs. Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and all the other tech CEOs will benefit in place of all of the artists I love and admire. That, to me, sucks.

Zambyte 1y ago
> And if we got rid of copyright law, wouldn’t we be in that exact place, where people wouldn’t be allowed to make money off of creative endeavors? This is addressed in the second article I linked.
- SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
  Is it though? All I see is hand-waving.
93po 1y ago
Copyright isn't about distribution, it's about creation. In reality the chances of getting in trouble is basically zero if you don't distribute it - who would know? But technically any creation, even in private, is violating copyright. Doesn't matter if you make money or put it on the internet. There is fair use, but fair is an affirmative defense to infringing copyright. By claiming fair use you are simultaneously admitting infringement. The idea that you have to defend your own private expression of ideas based on other ideas is still wrong in my view.
- Zambyte 1y ago
  > Copyright isn't about distribution, it's about creation This is exactly wrong. You can copy all of Harry Potter into your journal as many times as you want legally (creating copies) so long as you do not distribute it.
  - whamlastxmas 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St... "copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly" "The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to do and authorize others to do the following: To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;To prepare derivative works based upon the work;" "Commonly, this involves someone creating or distributing" https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ "U.S. copyright law provides copyright owners with the following exclusive rights: Reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. Prepare derivative works based upon the work." https://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/students/intellectual-property-guide-uc-berkeley-graduate-students/copyrights-protecting-creators https://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/students/intellectu... "Copyright infringement occurs when a work is reproduced, distributed, displayed, performed or altered without the creator’s permission." There are endless legitimate sources for this. Copyright protects many things, not just distribution. It very clearly disallows the creation and production of copyrighted works.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

otterley 1y ago

Copyright doesn’t protect ideas. It protects expression of those ideas. Consider how many books exist on how to care for trees. Each one of them has similar ideas, but the way those ideas are expressed differ. Copyright protects the content of the book; it doesn’t protect the ideas of how to care for trees.

93po 1y ago
Disney has a copyright over Moana. I would argue Moana is an idea in the sense that most people think of as ideas. Moana isn't tangle, it's not a physical good. It's not a plate on my table. It only exists in our heads. If I made a Moana comic book, with an entirely original storyline and original art and it was all drawn in my own style and not using 3D assets similar to their movies, that is violating copyright. Moana is an idea and there are a million ways to express the established character Moana, and Moana itself is an idea built on a million things that Disney doesn't have any rights to - history, culture, tropes, etc. I understand what you're saying but the way you're framing it isn't what I really have a problem with. I still don't agree with the idea that I can't make my own physical copies of Harry Potters books, identical word for word. I think people can choose to buy the physical books from the original publisher because they want to support them or like the idea that it's the "true" physical copy. And I'm going to push back on that a million times less than the concept of things like Moana comic books. But still, it's infringing copyright for me to make Moana comic books in my own home, in private, and never showing them to anyone. And that's ridiculous.
- otterley 1y ago
  > [Moana] only exists in our heads. Moana and Moana 2 are both animated movies that have already been made. They're not just figures of one's imagination. > If I made a Moana comic book, with an entirely original storyline and original art and it was all drawn in my own style and not using 3D assets similar to their movies, that is violating copyright It might be, or it might not. Copyright protects the creation of derivative works (17 USC 101, 17 USC 103, 17 USC 106), but it's the copyright holder's burden to persuade the court that the allegedly infringing work with the character Moana in it is derivative of their protected work. Ask yourself the question: what is the value of Moana to you in this hypothetical? What if you used a different name for the character and the character had a different backstory and personality? > I still don't agree with the idea that I can't make my own physical copies of Harry Potters books You might think differently if you had sunk thousands of hours into creating a new novel and creative work was your primary form of income. > But still, it's infringing copyright for me to make Moana comic books in my own home, in private, and never showing them to anyone. It seems unlikely that Disney is would go after you for that. Kids do it all the time.