4 ms·

The problem is that nearly nothing opts in to do that (they don't have any incentive to; the system rewards the lucky ones that don't do that), so authors are b

by AgentME 11y ago

The problem is that nearly nothing opts in to do that (they don't have any incentive to; the system rewards the lucky ones that don't do that), so authors are blocked from using elements of modern culture and myths.

rayiner 11y ago
If the shared "culture and myths" are so important, why don't people reward those that contribute to it?
- advael 11y ago
  Because the short-term incentive of turning a profit doesn't match up with the long-term incentive of benefiting everyone. The latter can lead to the former, but it's neither sufficient nor necessary.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons The system is set up in a way that ensures that individual creators (or, rather, their rightsholders) can profit, at the expense of the public domain that no powerful entities can profitably defend. Basically, copyright is now a one-way street, when it was supposed to be a two-way bargain.
- darkmighty 11y ago
  We're stopping people from growing and contributing to the mythos in favor of rewarding the original creators. But for current law the original creators are long dead by the copyright expiration date. No fantasy author in their right mind would think "Wow, my work will stop being censored only 90 years from now, even though I will be dead! I will refrain from writing it because my ancestors will make less money."
  - tzs 11y ago
    A fantasy author is getting a little bit too caught up in their fantasy world and forgetting how the real world works if they they think their decisions now will affect how much money their ancestors will make. :-)
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Why don't fantasy authors release their works into the public domain after a certain length of time?
    - mordocai 11y ago
      The publishers won't agree to such a thing and, as was argued in other parts of this thread, that means for most authors that they just can't do it.
    - e12e 11y ago
      As others have commented, this goes against all the established business practices. Even Baen books, that release some books[1] (mostly the first in a series) for no cost, and drm free, doesn't give away copyright to the commons. If people are to live from writing books, the advance for writing books need to come from somewhere. Crowd funding might be one viable way forward -- I've funded a few graphic novels on kickstarter -- but I don't think any of those have released the work under a CC0 or similar license (I would have been even more exited to fund them if they did). One problem is that when something is published, it is under copyright. So copyright/the license will need to be changed. I suppose one could print a license text in a book/comic stating that "all rights are reserved until 2020, at which point this work shall be free under a CC0 license". But it will only be under a CC0 license as long as the original author/publisher maintains copyright. What happens if someone buys the copyright? I suppose the license can't be revoked (that'd be the end of copyleft software) -- but it could create some confusion if a second instalment was released under stricter copyright. Not to mention the need for a trademark license (as I understand it, that's needed for things like characters?). I don't think I own any notable works of fiction that are recent and not under traditional copyright. I have purchased some music that is, and eg. the TV series "Pioneer One"[2]. Well, I suppose I have a copy of some of Cory Doctorow's novels, but I haven't gotten around to reading them yet -- nor have I bought any of them (yet) either. [1] https://www.baenebooks.com/c-1-free-library.aspx https://www.baenebooks.com/c-1-free-library.aspx [2] http://vodo.net/joshbernhard/pioneerone/ http://vodo.net/joshbernhard/pioneerone/
    - deciplex 11y ago
      The only way they would not be leaving money on the table is if their work was so irrelevant that making it public domain would be a waste of time anyway.
- mlinksva 11y ago
  'People' are a diffuse interest. Big budget publishers and intermediaries are a concentrated interest; they can create demand/cultural relevance for their products and demand protectionist regulation. Because publishers are the path to popularity/cultural relevance (with a minor price discrimination/marketing assist from piracy) it doesn't make any sense for creators with aspirations of even minor stardom to go outside the system. Stross (edit: guest poster Hugh Hancock) and zillions of others are complaining about the outcome of this dynamic, not proposing any way to change it. I like your critique (don't complain, go outside system personally) but as a personal recommendation it will be rejected almost always (see above). To have a real crack at changing the dynamic, 'people' need to figure out how to peer produce cultural relevance independent of the system and compete on policy in a way that furthers peer production rather than merely mitigates excesses. Demanding public domain for public funding is one policy item to push on, currently outre for cultural funding/subsidy.
- egypturnash 11y ago
  We do. How much money went into making new Star Wars movie? How much money is tied up in the forty-odd Marvel movies being made over the next few years? For that matter, how much money has gone into making any of the retellings of traditional fables and myth that has been bread and butter for Disney's animated features since 'Snow White'? (And into relentlessly policing the unauthorized use of the Disney rendition of these characters?) There is a lot of creative accounting going on in Hollywood, but there is an entire industry built on making these movies that are the only lawyer-approved way of working with these characters. It has its pitfalls but if you can get into it, you can have a fairly comfortable middle-class lifestyle, if you don't mind regular periods of unemployment when one feature/tv show/etc ends and you haven't found a new one yet. And occasionally having some creative accounting fail to pay the last few bills of the subcontracted effects company you working for. We are even beginning to get better about rewarding the people who work down in the comic-book trenches creating these characters. Creators reaching their prime learnt from the miserable treatment Marvel and DC gave folks like Siegel & Shuster (Superman's creators) or Jack Kirby (co-creator of pretty much the entire fucking Marvel Universe), and became more canny about not signing all their rights away - Eastman and Laird (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) are a great example.
- coldtea 11y ago
  If peace, love and faireness is so important why are there wars, hate and injustice? It's not a magic unicorn world that automatically reward what's important.

by AgentME 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

If the shared "culture and myths" are so important, why don't people reward those that contribute to it?

advael 11y ago
Because the short-term incentive of turning a profit doesn't match up with the long-term incentive of benefiting everyone. The latter can lead to the former, but it's neither sufficient nor necessary.
CamperBob2 11y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons The system is set up in a way that ensures that individual creators (or, rather, their rightsholders) can profit, at the expense of the public domain that no powerful entities can profitably defend. Basically, copyright is now a one-way street, when it was supposed to be a two-way bargain.
darkmighty 11y ago
We're stopping people from growing and contributing to the mythos in favor of rewarding the original creators. But for current law the original creators are long dead by the copyright expiration date. No fantasy author in their right mind would think "Wow, my work will stop being censored only 90 years from now, even though I will be dead! I will refrain from writing it because my ancestors will make less money."
- tzs 11y ago
  A fantasy author is getting a little bit too caught up in their fantasy world and forgetting how the real world works if they they think their decisions now will affect how much money their ancestors will make. :-)
- rayiner 11y ago
  Why don't fantasy authors release their works into the public domain after a certain length of time?
  - mordocai 11y ago
    The publishers won't agree to such a thing and, as was argued in other parts of this thread, that means for most authors that they just can't do it.
  - e12e 11y ago
    As others have commented, this goes against all the established business practices. Even Baen books, that release some books[1] (mostly the first in a series) for no cost, and drm free, doesn't give away copyright to the commons. If people are to live from writing books, the advance for writing books need to come from somewhere. Crowd funding might be one viable way forward -- I've funded a few graphic novels on kickstarter -- but I don't think any of those have released the work under a CC0 or similar license (I would have been even more exited to fund them if they did). One problem is that when something is published, it is under copyright. So copyright/the license will need to be changed. I suppose one could print a license text in a book/comic stating that "all rights are reserved until 2020, at which point this work shall be free under a CC0 license". But it will only be under a CC0 license as long as the original author/publisher maintains copyright. What happens if someone buys the copyright? I suppose the license can't be revoked (that'd be the end of copyleft software) -- but it could create some confusion if a second instalment was released under stricter copyright. Not to mention the need for a trademark license (as I understand it, that's needed for things like characters?). I don't think I own any notable works of fiction that are recent and not under traditional copyright. I have purchased some music that is, and eg. the TV series "Pioneer One"[2]. Well, I suppose I have a copy of some of Cory Doctorow's novels, but I haven't gotten around to reading them yet -- nor have I bought any of them (yet) either. [1] https://www.baenebooks.com/c-1-free-library.aspx https://www.baenebooks.com/c-1-free-library.aspx [2] http://vodo.net/joshbernhard/pioneerone/ http://vodo.net/joshbernhard/pioneerone/
  - deciplex 11y ago
    The only way they would not be leaving money on the table is if their work was so irrelevant that making it public domain would be a waste of time anyway.
mlinksva 11y ago
'People' are a diffuse interest. Big budget publishers and intermediaries are a concentrated interest; they can create demand/cultural relevance for their products and demand protectionist regulation. Because publishers are the path to popularity/cultural relevance (with a minor price discrimination/marketing assist from piracy) it doesn't make any sense for creators with aspirations of even minor stardom to go outside the system. Stross (edit: guest poster Hugh Hancock) and zillions of others are complaining about the outcome of this dynamic, not proposing any way to change it. I like your critique (don't complain, go outside system personally) but as a personal recommendation it will be rejected almost always (see above). To have a real crack at changing the dynamic, 'people' need to figure out how to peer produce cultural relevance independent of the system and compete on policy in a way that furthers peer production rather than merely mitigates excesses. Demanding public domain for public funding is one policy item to push on, currently outre for cultural funding/subsidy.
egypturnash 11y ago
We do. How much money went into making new Star Wars movie? How much money is tied up in the forty-odd Marvel movies being made over the next few years? For that matter, how much money has gone into making any of the retellings of traditional fables and myth that has been bread and butter for Disney's animated features since 'Snow White'? (And into relentlessly policing the unauthorized use of the Disney rendition of these characters?) There is a lot of creative accounting going on in Hollywood, but there is an entire industry built on making these movies that are the only lawyer-approved way of working with these characters. It has its pitfalls but if you can get into it, you can have a fairly comfortable middle-class lifestyle, if you don't mind regular periods of unemployment when one feature/tv show/etc ends and you haven't found a new one yet. And occasionally having some creative accounting fail to pay the last few bills of the subcontracted effects company you working for. We are even beginning to get better about rewarding the people who work down in the comic-book trenches creating these characters. Creators reaching their prime learnt from the miserable treatment Marvel and DC gave folks like Siegel & Shuster (Superman's creators) or Jack Kirby (co-creator of pretty much the entire fucking Marvel Universe), and became more canny about not signing all their rights away - Eastman and Laird (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) are a great example.
coldtea 11y ago
If peace, love and faireness is so important why are there wars, hate and injustice? It's not a magic unicorn world that automatically reward what's important.