3 ms·

I contend it already has. Locking arts and entertainment -- culture -- up for life plus 70 years (or 95 years for corporations) ensures it cannot be modified o

by beedogs 14y ago

I contend it already has. Locking arts and entertainment -- culture -- up for life plus 70 years (or 95 years for corporations) ensures it cannot be modified or built upon, as it had been for thousands of years prior to the mid-1970s, until it's completely irrelevant to the generations it's most influential upon.

Osmium 14y ago
> ... ensures it cannot be modified or built upon That's not entirely true. For example, it's easy to draw clear lines of inspiration between past and present movies. The line between homage and plagiarism has always been blurry. Regardless of laws, our culture will always be a "remix" culture, it can't exist any other way. Everything we do is derivative. But I agree, locking up arts in such a direct way is harmful. It creates unnatural roadblocks, and we'd be better off without them, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and claim that IP laws crush creativity.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  The gulf between homage and derivative work is quite wide. Consider a few examples of famous derivative works: Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, Alice in Wonderland, Apocalypse Now, Muppet Christmas Carol. Right now there are no less than 3 different ongoing adaptations of Sherlock Holmes (the movie series, the BBC series, and CBS's Elementary series). These are works that would be patently illegal if the source material were not in the public domain. This isn't just about "remix culture", it's about being able to adapt and interpret what's out there, fully and without restriction. Clearly there is value to allowing such artistic freedom once a work has grown sufficiently old. However, today that age has grown quite impractically long. A movie such as War of the Worlds (a 110+ year old book) can be made without seeking a licensing agreement, but movies such as The Hobbit (a 75 year old book), King Kong (79 years), The Chronicles of Narnia (62 years), Casino Royale (59 years), or The Dark Knight Rises (73 years) still require licensing. And the sad part is that even in the next 20 years when, say, the Superman IP will be pushing 100 years old and Mickey Mouse even older it seems likely that such things will still require licensing. The fact that the current IP laws have not utterly destroyed creativity or the productivity of creative industries is not a ringing endorsement. The fact is that they are stifling and they have been responsible for creating an industry which is too heavily controlled by a small group.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > The fact is that they are stifling and they have been responsible for creating an industry which is too heavily controlled by a small group. I have had a sense that culture is somehow stifled, ever since I was a child. The notion that IP law is doing this makes sense.
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      An interesting case in point is to look at BBC's Sherlock TV show. It portrays a very different sort of Sherlock than people are used to, a Sherlock which is perhaps homosexual, a Sherlock who is described as a "high functioning sociopath", and a Sherlock who is portrayed as perhaps being a fraud. The sorts of things that probably wouldn't be possible if the IP had to be licensed but which result in the show being a huge critical success and having an extremely dedicated fan following. Another example would be all of Shakespeare's plays, which predominantly would be considered derivative works of other recently written plays and stories at the time. One can't help but wonder how many other equally daring ideas for derivative works have been shut down due to the excessive length of IP protection.

by beedogs 14y ago

Osmium 14y ago

> ... ensures it cannot be modified or built upon That's not entirely true. For example, it's easy to draw clear lines of inspiration between past and present movies. The line between homage and plagiarism has always been blurry. Regardless of laws, our culture will always be a "remix" culture, it can't exist any other way. Everything we do is derivative. But I agree, locking up arts in such a direct way is harmful. It creates unnatural roadblocks, and we'd be better off without them, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and claim that IP laws crush creativity.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
The gulf between homage and derivative work is quite wide. Consider a few examples of famous derivative works: Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, Alice in Wonderland, Apocalypse Now, Muppet Christmas Carol. Right now there are no less than 3 different ongoing adaptations of Sherlock Holmes (the movie series, the BBC series, and CBS's Elementary series). These are works that would be patently illegal if the source material were not in the public domain. This isn't just about "remix culture", it's about being able to adapt and interpret what's out there, fully and without restriction. Clearly there is value to allowing such artistic freedom once a work has grown sufficiently old. However, today that age has grown quite impractically long. A movie such as War of the Worlds (a 110+ year old book) can be made without seeking a licensing agreement, but movies such as The Hobbit (a 75 year old book), King Kong (79 years), The Chronicles of Narnia (62 years), Casino Royale (59 years), or The Dark Knight Rises (73 years) still require licensing. And the sad part is that even in the next 20 years when, say, the Superman IP will be pushing 100 years old and Mickey Mouse even older it seems likely that such things will still require licensing. The fact that the current IP laws have not utterly destroyed creativity or the productivity of creative industries is not a ringing endorsement. The fact is that they are stifling and they have been responsible for creating an industry which is too heavily controlled by a small group.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > The fact is that they are stifling and they have been responsible for creating an industry which is too heavily controlled by a small group. I have had a sense that culture is somehow stifled, ever since I was a child. The notion that IP law is doing this makes sense.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    An interesting case in point is to look at BBC's Sherlock TV show. It portrays a very different sort of Sherlock than people are used to, a Sherlock which is perhaps homosexual, a Sherlock who is described as a "high functioning sociopath", and a Sherlock who is portrayed as perhaps being a fraud. The sorts of things that probably wouldn't be possible if the IP had to be licensed but which result in the show being a huge critical success and having an extremely dedicated fan following. Another example would be all of Shakespeare's plays, which predominantly would be considered derivative works of other recently written plays and stories at the time. One can't help but wonder how many other equally daring ideas for derivative works have been shut down due to the excessive length of IP protection.