6 ms·

Let's make an analogy to software. Let's say there is this amazing piece of software that everyone loves, and then the developer decides to stop developing it.

by tsally 18y ago

Let's make an analogy to software. Let's say there is this amazing piece of software that everyone loves, and then the developer decides to stop developing it. Should someone else have the right to expand on it, since so many people stand to benefit? Harry Potter is a cultural icon, and the Encylopdia increased the value of it. The writer of it was a huge fan who wrote the entire thing as a side project. There was no corporate backing until he tried to publish it, it was all done out of a love for the characters. Wow, this comment is -1 as well? What's with the new people on HN today.... go back to Reddit/Digg please. As the request of the below poster, my rational is that my view, while not the same as yours, is reasoned and made clearly.

unalone 18y ago
Harry Potter is first and foremost a book series. Anything more is based on the author's benevolence or interests. Once Harry Potter is published, it's out there and it's done. The series lies in those printed novels. That doesn't change. If Rowling wants to let people add more, she can, but it is certainly not a requirement. Similarly, I absolutely have the right to suspend a software project of mine and leave it hanging, if that's what I want. Perhaps I don't want something associated with my name being sullied by other people's work. Maybe I want it to be associated with me and only me. The fan was terrific, but he tried to make money. Rowling told him she was against that and he did it anyway. So it wasn't like she lied to him. By the way: I downvote people as soon as they ask about why they're being downvoted, unless they're giving a good rationale for why they shouldn't be downvoted. Maybe that's why the negativism?
- tsally 18y ago
  Of course you can suspend or erase any software you write at any time. I believe this changes if your software gains widespread cultural importance and acclaim. There are responsibilities that go along with creating something so important. I swear, if Take Me Out To The Ball Game was written today, we wouldn't be able to sing at baseball games because of copyright.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Happy Birthday is copyright, and people using it in movies pay a royalty. Find me the thing that says that if I make software, I lose rights to it once it gains "importance and acclaim." Perhaps I can't ERASE software, but are you saying I can't stop IMPROVING it just because it becomes big? Because that's just silly.
    - tsally 18y ago
      Find me the thing that says that if I make software, I lose rights to it once it gains "importance and acclaim." There is not anything that says this, that's just the way I believe it should be, for many reasons. Put simply, I don't think anyone has the right or the ability to keep complete control over something as large and important as Harry Potter. Perhaps I can't ERASE software, but are you saying I can't stop IMPROVING it just because it becomes big? Never. My claim is that you shouldn't be able to stop others from improving on it. I know definitions of "improve" are going to vary across the board, but the Encylopedia example is something that is an obvious improvement. What if Linus didn't want anyone else to improve on Linux?
      - unalone 18y ago
        There is not anything that says this, that's just the way I believe it should be, for many reasons. Put simply, I don't think anyone has the right or the ability to keep complete control over something as large and important as Harry Potter. That's fair enough. That's essentially what I'm arguing too, but in reverse. I guess that's just a matter of opinion. What if Linus didn't want anyone else to improve on Linux? Then it would have died out in favor of some open source thing. But it was Linus's choice. Say a writer could gain a massive popularity surge by open-sourcing her world and characters. She'd have an edge over Rowling because Rowling won't do that. But either way, it's not the law allowing her to get ahead, it's the market. If Rowling is ignored for some more open world, then the market has spoken. If, however, her ideas stay big despite her retaining outright control, then there's no incentive to take them from her, and my opinion is that it's morally wrong to.
tocomment 18y ago
I like your comment. I think once something enters our culture we all really own it regardless of who created it, regardless of copyright law. (Read Free Culture for a much better and nuanced explanation of this.)
- unalone 18y ago
  So J. K. Rowling, who spent seven years developing her universe before she even began writing her first novel, who spend inordinate amounts of time developing her systems, her characters, her plot, the morals and concepts she focused on... once she finished it, that's yours? You own some sort of a right to it? You have exactly as much a right to Rowling's universe as she wants you to have. That begins with her novels: she has decided that you have a right to read her stories once you pay money for her books, or once you access her books in some way that involves, somehow, her making money. Once you've done that, you're free to discuss those ideas, you can talk about them with people, you can write about them. But that doesn't give you a right to alter or modify her writing in any way, and I don't think it gives you a right to alter her works for commercial purposes in any way. If you want to make a free online resource, go for it, but if you're going to make money over 17 years of J. K. Rowling's life, there may be a problem. (It's better phrased: she has the right to give you a problem.) Interesting concept: perhaps authors could sell licenses to enter a world's commercial universe. Asimov made a universe for other writers because he wanted them to keep out of his own, then never wrote a story in that second universe himself. Perhaps an enterprising writer could create these huge worlds and scenarios and license them for profit. That would make for a fascinating take on the idea of creative world design that we've already seen explored with things like Dungeons & Dragons.
  - xiaoma 18y ago
    >So J. K. Rowling, who spent seven years developing her universe before she even began writing her first novel, who spend inordinate amounts of time developing her systems, her characters, her plot, the morals and concepts she focused on... once she finished it, that's yours? You own some sort of a right to it? Jefferson had it right about copyright from the beginning. It's got to be a balance of incentives for the creators and good for the public. Yes, it's good to give artists incentives to create, but only so long as the public benefits. The original copyright limits years may have been a reasonable balance. Current law is insane. Extending Walt Disney's copyrights even further past his death don't retroactively increase his incentive to create goods for the public. On the contrary, they deprive the public of what he has already created. Similarly, Rowling is already a billionaire. She has been well compensated for her work. There is no moral hazard in letting the public use it. The current system actually gives her less incentive to create anything new, because she (and her estate) have been granted a monopoly on her work until far past her death.

by tsally 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

Harry Potter is first and foremost a book series. Anything more is based on the author's benevolence or interests. Once Harry Potter is published, it's out there and it's done. The series lies in those printed novels. That doesn't change. If Rowling wants to let people add more, she can, but it is certainly not a requirement. Similarly, I absolutely have the right to suspend a software project of mine and leave it hanging, if that's what I want. Perhaps I don't want something associated with my name being sullied by other people's work. Maybe I want it to be associated with me and only me. The fan was terrific, but he tried to make money. Rowling told him she was against that and he did it anyway. So it wasn't like she lied to him. By the way: I downvote people as soon as they ask about why they're being downvoted, unless they're giving a good rationale for why they shouldn't be downvoted. Maybe that's why the negativism?

tsally 18y ago
Of course you can suspend or erase any software you write at any time. I believe this changes if your software gains widespread cultural importance and acclaim. There are responsibilities that go along with creating something so important. I swear, if Take Me Out To The Ball Game was written today, we wouldn't be able to sing at baseball games because of copyright.
- unalone 18y ago
  Happy Birthday is copyright, and people using it in movies pay a royalty. Find me the thing that says that if I make software, I lose rights to it once it gains "importance and acclaim." Perhaps I can't ERASE software, but are you saying I can't stop IMPROVING it just because it becomes big? Because that's just silly.
  - tsally 18y ago
    Find me the thing that says that if I make software, I lose rights to it once it gains "importance and acclaim." There is not anything that says this, that's just the way I believe it should be, for many reasons. Put simply, I don't think anyone has the right or the ability to keep complete control over something as large and important as Harry Potter. Perhaps I can't ERASE software, but are you saying I can't stop IMPROVING it just because it becomes big? Never. My claim is that you shouldn't be able to stop others from improving on it. I know definitions of "improve" are going to vary across the board, but the Encylopedia example is something that is an obvious improvement. What if Linus didn't want anyone else to improve on Linux?
    - unalone 18y ago
      There is not anything that says this, that's just the way I believe it should be, for many reasons. Put simply, I don't think anyone has the right or the ability to keep complete control over something as large and important as Harry Potter. That's fair enough. That's essentially what I'm arguing too, but in reverse. I guess that's just a matter of opinion. What if Linus didn't want anyone else to improve on Linux? Then it would have died out in favor of some open source thing. But it was Linus's choice. Say a writer could gain a massive popularity surge by open-sourcing her world and characters. She'd have an edge over Rowling because Rowling won't do that. But either way, it's not the law allowing her to get ahead, it's the market. If Rowling is ignored for some more open world, then the market has spoken. If, however, her ideas stay big despite her retaining outright control, then there's no incentive to take them from her, and my opinion is that it's morally wrong to.

tocomment 18y ago

I like your comment. I think once something enters our culture we all really own it regardless of who created it, regardless of copyright law. (Read Free Culture for a much better and nuanced explanation of this.)

unalone 18y ago
So J. K. Rowling, who spent seven years developing her universe before she even began writing her first novel, who spend inordinate amounts of time developing her systems, her characters, her plot, the morals and concepts she focused on... once she finished it, that's yours? You own some sort of a right to it? You have exactly as much a right to Rowling's universe as she wants you to have. That begins with her novels: she has decided that you have a right to read her stories once you pay money for her books, or once you access her books in some way that involves, somehow, her making money. Once you've done that, you're free to discuss those ideas, you can talk about them with people, you can write about them. But that doesn't give you a right to alter or modify her writing in any way, and I don't think it gives you a right to alter her works for commercial purposes in any way. If you want to make a free online resource, go for it, but if you're going to make money over 17 years of J. K. Rowling's life, there may be a problem. (It's better phrased: she has the right to give you a problem.) Interesting concept: perhaps authors could sell licenses to enter a world's commercial universe. Asimov made a universe for other writers because he wanted them to keep out of his own, then never wrote a story in that second universe himself. Perhaps an enterprising writer could create these huge worlds and scenarios and license them for profit. That would make for a fascinating take on the idea of creative world design that we've already seen explored with things like Dungeons & Dragons.
- xiaoma 18y ago
  >So J. K. Rowling, who spent seven years developing her universe before she even began writing her first novel, who spend inordinate amounts of time developing her systems, her characters, her plot, the morals and concepts she focused on... once she finished it, that's yours? You own some sort of a right to it? Jefferson had it right about copyright from the beginning. It's got to be a balance of incentives for the creators and good for the public. Yes, it's good to give artists incentives to create, but only so long as the public benefits. The original copyright limits years may have been a reasonable balance. Current law is insane. Extending Walt Disney's copyrights even further past his death don't retroactively increase his incentive to create goods for the public. On the contrary, they deprive the public of what he has already created. Similarly, Rowling is already a billionaire. She has been well compensated for her work. There is no moral hazard in letting the public use it. The current system actually gives her less incentive to create anything new, because she (and her estate) have been granted a monopoly on her work until far past her death.