3 ms·

I could argue with some of your raw assertions (what constitutes creativity, and what doesn't), but I won't, b/c that's rather besides the point. I am interest

by frig 18y ago

I could argue with some of your raw assertions (what constitutes creativity, and what doesn't), but I won't, b/c that's rather besides the point. I am interested in a very simple question: why do want "final control over your creation" (in the sense that, if you had your way, you could say NO to someone writing a sparknotes of it, and the state would step in and prevent that person from publishing the sparknotes)? All I get back from you are either non-sequiturs (such as your opinion on what is or is not creative work, or the mechanics of fantasy writing, and so on) or reassertions of what you want, without explanation. We're talking past each other so this is my last comment to you. I'm ignoring your first two paragraphs because they don't even address what I'm asking you: "why do you want final control over your creation" (in the sense that, if you had your way, you could say NO to someone writing a sparknotes of it)? Answers that would be sensible: (a) "I place an extremely high value on notions of purity-of-vision, and believe that a creator should be given a wide 'breather' during which time they may elaborate upon their vision without outside interference; third-party works run the risk of polluting the original creator's vision and thus the creator should be protected from those works unless explicitly opting out of them" (b) "I place an extremely high value on notions of purity-of-vision, and believe that only the original author of some work knows what that work was intended to accomplish and whether or not some related third-party work poses a risk to the work's ability to accomplish that" (c) "I believe an overly laissez-faire outlook towards the production of third-party 'add-ons' around a particular work may have a deleterious effect upon the incentives of creatives to create; in addition to the economic incentives that third party works might compromise, there's also the risk of inducing psychological disincentives to publish one's creations" ...none of the above are explanations I'd necessarily agree with -- and all of the above would ideally be tempered by an appeal to some kind of utility metric ("I believe the benefit of granting such abilities would outweigh the costs such abilities would impose") -- but all of the above are sensible explanations for why you might want such control over the actions of others. What I have gotten back from you in the way of "explanation" is materially the same statement repeated thrice (if at first you don't succeed, say it diff'rent!): (1) I should have final control over my creation because it's mine. Yeah, and I've been asking you why. LOL. I think everyone knows that's what you want. (2) I have every right to it. Which in context is an emphatic re-assertion of the preceeding claim ("THEY ARE!" to the previous sentence's "The beatles are the best band ever!"). It contains no elaboration or additional justification of your claim. (3) I support the actions of people who want to maintain their creative control. Strike the third! I think (1) and (2) already established (3); what did you think you were communicating in (3) that wasn't already contained in (1) and "YES, INDEED"-ed in (2)? What other explanation is sensible? I've given you examples of sensible explanations; you've given me no explanation, along with some ramblings as to how you rate the kinds of creativity you see as being involved in various tasks. Rowling had sensible explanations in her complaint: you can find it here http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/harrypotter.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/harrypotter... She asserts: various and sundry claims of copyright infringement, but she also gives explanations for why she wants to enforce her rights (cf paras 2+3): - concern for confusion on the part of the reading public (they might think she was involved in the lexicon or endorsed the lexicon, when that wasn't the case) (solved; publisher changed title and cover design) - concern that her own plans to write an encyclopedia might be hampered by the existence of the lexicon (found not to be an actionable item) And, contrary to your aesthetics, even though her team won the "lexicon" case, the decision came down not as some kind of broad assertion of the principle that creators of fantasy worlds can exclude others from those worlds at whim; it came down to what amounts to "this would've been fair use if only the lexicon hadn't lifted quite so much in verbatim" (my interpretation, you can find the full judgment here: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Lexicon+Order.pdf http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Lexicon+Order.pdf ; it's a very good read). You remind me of nothing else than Oscar Crease; good-day, sir!

unalone 18y ago
I don't know whether to be impressed that you wrote all that, or irritated that in all of that, you ignored that I was saying, mocked me, called me names, and then treated yourself like you were the victor. I wasn't explaining Rowling's reasons for protecting copyright. I was explaining my own. That's an opinion that has nothing to do with anybody else's view of it, or the existing law. It's my own opinions. Now, you could have debated those opinions and we could have an argument about just how much control my labor entitles me to. Instead you ignored that, gave your own "acceptable" answers, and then called me names.
- frig 18y ago
  In the interest of charity and good-naturedness I'll address your points and explain myself further. It was clear from the outset you weren't interested in or thinking about "existing law" (because you were claiming to have rights that you don't, under existing law). It was also pretty clear that you had a pretty strong opinion as to exactly what level of control you'd want to have: I would take the controversial opinion that if somebody's going to make a Sparknotes for a novel I wrote, they need my permission. I asked you a couple different times why you would want it to be that way -- what's your motivation for wanting the world to be such that, if someone's going to make a Sparknotes for a novel you'd wrote, then they'd need your permission -- and you'd never give a straight answer. You clarified your position slightly -- some kinds of works referencing yours would be ok (like the bible according to harry potter), but others (like sparknotes) wouldn't -- but never actually explained why you adopted that particular position. From what you did write I could probably infer your underlying outlook: it's a little hazy, sure, but basically there's some objective sense in which the contents of works by a particular author are or are creative, and when a work is (1) insufficiently creative and (2) heavily dependent on some other, actually-creative work then control of the work is forfeited to the actual creator of the work's underlying content; under such a system authors would have considerably more control over the actions of others than they would in the present system. If that's not your outlook, no worries: I said I was trying not to put words in your mouth, and that's why I never brought the above up and instead waited for you to explain the connection between your ramblings about relative amounts of creativity and the amount of legal control you wished you had over what other people (hypothetically) did that referenced your (hypothetical) works. I got more and more exasperated when you failed to explicitly draw the connection: why ought such-and-such notion of creativity ought to be granted legal protection above and beyond what it has now and why not this other kind of creative effort? And I got more and more exasperated because, on top of all that, you never even answered the question I asked from my very first post: not "why do you think such-and-such amount of control is justified" -- though you never answered that, either -- but "why would you (personally) want such-and-such control?" I even proffered some hypothetical explanations: maybe you'd "get something" (economic) if you had that level of control; maybe you just wanted it on account of aesthetics or moral code; but, why? I'd even have been happy with some self-awareness of the "yeah, I just would prefer that level of control, and don't have a strong sense why I want that" sort, but no dice. So: color me disappointed, and hence the exasperation. I will say that, if I've gotten your outlook approximately correct it's pretty alien to me, as any attempt to establish even a quasi-objective notion of creativity involves making a lot of decisions that themselves will depend upon heavily on unstated assumptions. For example, elsewhere you describe a (hypothetical) sparknotes for one of your (hypothetical) writings as entirely dependent upon your work, adding nothing and (possibly) taking much away. That's your opinion; but, like the dude says, "that's just, like, your opinion, man." Here's some of the stuff that that outlook minimizes: (1) someone writing a sparknotes for your novel is writing it because your novel has become studied sufficiently often for there to be a healthy market for study aides; that your novel has become studied sufficiently often for their to be a healthy market is NOT solely on account of your novel...it's a complicated byproduct of the specific contents of your market, the dynamics of reviewers and academics, the cultural mores of the time, and so forth. So, already we have a complication: you want to claim that the sparknotes only has value on account of your novel; rather, it has value on account of your novel and the socio-cultural dynamics surrounding your novel, not all of which (to put it mildly) are within your control. I can understand that you might want to have veto ability over the sparknotes on account of some vague notion that "it's entirely dependent upon my novel for existing", but to go from that being "just your opinion, man" to some kind of enforceable quasi-objective fact means completely discounting the responsibility that the reading and critical audience had upon your works' status; if they hated it, there'd be no sparknotes either. (2) someone writing a sparknotes can easily claim they're more like the "bible for teens" (the one that has Jesus saying like "be awesome to each other" and "party on, dudes!" when he comes down from the mount): they adapt a particular work (your novel) intended for a particular audience (the general reading public) in a particular context (the general social setting of "literature", or some genre fiction market if that's your call) for another audience (students) in a different context (educational courses). Your notion of "creative" may not square with what they're doing, but for that difference of opinion to become legally enforceable is essentially equivalent to legally drawing a distinction between some platonic realm (that's where art lives) and the practical world, and granting claims into the platonic realm priority over claims of utility. It's akin to when the nose-to-the-grindstone geeks claim "twitter's just email lists on the web" -- they're right, but they're right only by ignoring the particularities of the audience and the presentation and the overall framing -- except it'd be codified as law. (3) there's yet another assumptional axis on which creativity might hinge: the notion of what're ideas that're novel and what aren't have huge unstated underpinnings. I'll beat up on JK Rowling a bit. For her work to be creative, all of the following ideas must be deemed freely copyable (in the sense of not calling into question the notion of the extent of creativity of the underlying work): - the notion of crafting a limited-duration children's book series with a coherent plot arc. As long as I've been alive scholastic et al have loved the notion of book series (and for adults there's stuff like fantasy novel series), because by not finishing the entire plot all at once they create an audience eager for sequels. viz, the Prydain books, the Darkness Rising series, literally hundreds more. - the notion of children with special powers going off to a parallel, hidden world for training in those powers, and eventually going on adventures and so forth, with the development and mastery of those powers -- and their eventual use in matters of significance -- making the book some sort of sublimated bildungsroman. Also old hat; the l'Engle books, possibly Narnia (though that lacks powers it otherwise fits the bill), plenty more. - the notion of boarding schools with "houses" of distinctive character, etc., which is a mishmash of the boarding school tradition and the oxbrige system ...and I could go on. All of those notions are currently "fair game", sure, but the point is (1) to start ranking things by creativity you have to draw lines between what's fair game and what isn't and (2) there's too many such decisions to ever explicitly make them all and thus (3) any such ranking-by-creativity will have plenty of those "decisions" made implicitly but (4) in your scheme those implicit, never-debated "decisions" would have vastly increased legal heft. And stuff like the above is why I don't cotton to an outlook in which creativity not only gets somehow "ranked" but in which that ranking takes on a great deal of legal heft (in the form of lawsuits and cease-and-decists and so forth); have all the aesthetic preference you want, plz, but keep them out of my laws if you don't mind sir. This is my absolutely final participation for a few days; gettin' too heated in these here parts.

by frig 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

I don't know whether to be impressed that you wrote all that, or irritated that in all of that, you ignored that I was saying, mocked me, called me names, and then treated yourself like you were the victor. I wasn't explaining Rowling's reasons for protecting copyright. I was explaining my own. That's an opinion that has nothing to do with anybody else's view of it, or the existing law. It's my own opinions. Now, you could have debated those opinions and we could have an argument about just how much control my labor entitles me to. Instead you ignored that, gave your own "acceptable" answers, and then called me names.

frig 18y ago
In the interest of charity and good-naturedness I'll address your points and explain myself further. It was clear from the outset you weren't interested in or thinking about "existing law" (because you were claiming to have rights that you don't, under existing law). It was also pretty clear that you had a pretty strong opinion as to exactly what level of control you'd want to have: I would take the controversial opinion that if somebody's going to make a Sparknotes for a novel I wrote, they need my permission. I asked you a couple different times why you would want it to be that way -- what's your motivation for wanting the world to be such that, if someone's going to make a Sparknotes for a novel you'd wrote, then they'd need your permission -- and you'd never give a straight answer. You clarified your position slightly -- some kinds of works referencing yours would be ok (like the bible according to harry potter), but others (like sparknotes) wouldn't -- but never actually explained why you adopted that particular position. From what you did write I could probably infer your underlying outlook: it's a little hazy, sure, but basically there's some objective sense in which the contents of works by a particular author are or are creative, and when a work is (1) insufficiently creative and (2) heavily dependent on some other, actually-creative work then control of the work is forfeited to the actual creator of the work's underlying content; under such a system authors would have considerably more control over the actions of others than they would in the present system. If that's not your outlook, no worries: I said I was trying not to put words in your mouth, and that's why I never brought the above up and instead waited for you to explain the connection between your ramblings about relative amounts of creativity and the amount of legal control you wished you had over what other people (hypothetically) did that referenced your (hypothetical) works. I got more and more exasperated when you failed to explicitly draw the connection: why ought such-and-such notion of creativity ought to be granted legal protection above and beyond what it has now and why not this other kind of creative effort? And I got more and more exasperated because, on top of all that, you never even answered the question I asked from my very first post: not "why do you think such-and-such amount of control is justified" -- though you never answered that, either -- but "why would you (personally) want such-and-such control?" I even proffered some hypothetical explanations: maybe you'd "get something" (economic) if you had that level of control; maybe you just wanted it on account of aesthetics or moral code; but, why? I'd even have been happy with some self-awareness of the "yeah, I just would prefer that level of control, and don't have a strong sense why I want that" sort, but no dice. So: color me disappointed, and hence the exasperation. I will say that, if I've gotten your outlook approximately correct it's pretty alien to me, as any attempt to establish even a quasi-objective notion of creativity involves making a lot of decisions that themselves will depend upon heavily on unstated assumptions. For example, elsewhere you describe a (hypothetical) sparknotes for one of your (hypothetical) writings as entirely dependent upon your work, adding nothing and (possibly) taking much away. That's your opinion; but, like the dude says, "that's just, like, your opinion, man." Here's some of the stuff that that outlook minimizes: (1) someone writing a sparknotes for your novel is writing it because your novel has become studied sufficiently often for there to be a healthy market for study aides; that your novel has become studied sufficiently often for their to be a healthy market is NOT solely on account of your novel...it's a complicated byproduct of the specific contents of your market, the dynamics of reviewers and academics, the cultural mores of the time, and so forth. So, already we have a complication: you want to claim that the sparknotes only has value on account of your novel; rather, it has value on account of your novel and the socio-cultural dynamics surrounding your novel, not all of which (to put it mildly) are within your control. I can understand that you might want to have veto ability over the sparknotes on account of some vague notion that "it's entirely dependent upon my novel for existing", but to go from that being "just your opinion, man" to some kind of enforceable quasi-objective fact means completely discounting the responsibility that the reading and critical audience had upon your works' status; if they hated it, there'd be no sparknotes either. (2) someone writing a sparknotes can easily claim they're more like the "bible for teens" (the one that has Jesus saying like "be awesome to each other" and "party on, dudes!" when he comes down from the mount): they adapt a particular work (your novel) intended for a particular audience (the general reading public) in a particular context (the general social setting of "literature", or some genre fiction market if that's your call) for another audience (students) in a different context (educational courses). Your notion of "creative" may not square with what they're doing, but for that difference of opinion to become legally enforceable is essentially equivalent to legally drawing a distinction between some platonic realm (that's where art lives) and the practical world, and granting claims into the platonic realm priority over claims of utility. It's akin to when the nose-to-the-grindstone geeks claim "twitter's just email lists on the web" -- they're right, but they're right only by ignoring the particularities of the audience and the presentation and the overall framing -- except it'd be codified as law. (3) there's yet another assumptional axis on which creativity might hinge: the notion of what're ideas that're novel and what aren't have huge unstated underpinnings. I'll beat up on JK Rowling a bit. For her work to be creative, all of the following ideas must be deemed freely copyable (in the sense of not calling into question the notion of the extent of creativity of the underlying work): - the notion of crafting a limited-duration children's book series with a coherent plot arc. As long as I've been alive scholastic et al have loved the notion of book series (and for adults there's stuff like fantasy novel series), because by not finishing the entire plot all at once they create an audience eager for sequels. viz, the Prydain books, the Darkness Rising series, literally hundreds more. - the notion of children with special powers going off to a parallel, hidden world for training in those powers, and eventually going on adventures and so forth, with the development and mastery of those powers -- and their eventual use in matters of significance -- making the book some sort of sublimated bildungsroman. Also old hat; the l'Engle books, possibly Narnia (though that lacks powers it otherwise fits the bill), plenty more. - the notion of boarding schools with "houses" of distinctive character, etc., which is a mishmash of the boarding school tradition and the oxbrige system ...and I could go on. All of those notions are currently "fair game", sure, but the point is (1) to start ranking things by creativity you have to draw lines between what's fair game and what isn't and (2) there's too many such decisions to ever explicitly make them all and thus (3) any such ranking-by-creativity will have plenty of those "decisions" made implicitly but (4) in your scheme those implicit, never-debated "decisions" would have vastly increased legal heft. And stuff like the above is why I don't cotton to an outlook in which creativity not only gets somehow "ranked" but in which that ranking takes on a great deal of legal heft (in the form of lawsuits and cease-and-decists and so forth); have all the aesthetic preference you want, plz, but keep them out of my laws if you don't mind sir. This is my absolutely final participation for a few days; gettin' too heated in these here parts.