I liked @givesomefucks comment. That copyright should last 14 years, (to me maybe idk that seems a little short but whatever) and then they can apply for extensions. if intellectual property is open to the public after just a couple years then nobody who put all the time, energy, and creativity that could’ve taken 10+ years of hard work (think GRRM’s ASOIAF) could be stolen and anyone could make any fan fiction and sell it within the universe he created without them having ever to have had to put in the work or had the talent that GRRM had himself.
Copyright is a very new concept compared to how long humanity has been telling stories. The idea that “oh no someone will make fan fiction!” is silly. That’s how shit was. People would take stories and change them. It’s not theft. It’s how you get Shakespeare.
what your suggesting would require a rework of our entire economic system and pretty much most economic systems which are market economies. people create things because of the value they can get from it. (that’s not the only reason but it’s a large driver of it). if people can’t profit off making a new IP, say like a new book for example with a whole new universe and characters, many people would stop writing new books in new IPs.
you’re basically proposing socialism for IPs, which i don’t think would be a conducive environment for people to want to make new IPs and would just lead to people creating constant spinoffs of other peoples creative ideas without an original thought of their own and without rewarding the original creator. there has to be some incentive to make something of your own, and right now that incentive is ownership and monetizing of that IP.
would just lead to people creating constant spinoffs of other peoples creative ideas without an original thought of their own and without rewarding the original creator. there has to be some incentive to make something of your own, and right now that incentive is ownership and monetizing of that IP.
Counter argument: the entirety of human history where people created, without a system of copyright.
Furthermore, I would accept a short duration of copyright (perhaps 7 years) as a compromise. The current length is far too long.
Edit: and another thing! Disney! You think they made up Snow White?
through the entirety of human history rape, theft, slavery, and all other horrors were common. we outlawed them. things existing throughout human history is not an argument. also in terms of copyright length i agree there should be a time limit but seven years seems way too short. even george RR martin’s work was 30 years in the making. do you think after george RR martin released his first book 7 years after that everyone else could make their own ASOIAF books, movies, tv shows, etc without having to get permission or compensate george in any way? i feel like this is shafting the creator
You were saying people wouldn’t create without copyright. And yet, copyright didn’t exist for much of humanity. Therefore, copyright is not necessary for people to create. If it was, they wouldn’t have created all the stuff they did.
Slavery and other horrors are irrelevant
Edit:
do you think after george RR martin released his first book 7 years after that everyone else could make their own ASOIAF books, movies, tv shows, etc without having to get permission or compensate george in any way? i feel like this is shafting the creator
7 years is plenty of time to profit.
And they can still profit by creating new work, or selling people the authentic copy. People go see live music despite video existing. People buy designer bags despite bootlegs existing.
If anyone can write a spiderman comic, then the ones that are the best will presumably do the best.
You were saying people wouldn’t create without copyright. And yet, copyright didn’t exist for much of humanity. Therefore, copyright is not necessary for people to create. If it was, they wouldn’t have created all the stuff they did.
my claim isn’t that people wouldn’t create. that’s preposterous. my claim is that people wouldn’t create as much and it would encourage more spinoffs of existing ideas, (ideas better than the people making spinoffs could’ve made on their own) and less incentive to create your own new IPs. world building is a huge thing in creating IPs. someone might be a great story teller, but lack the ability to build worlds. that person could essentially steal the world building skill of someone else and make their own better story in that other person’s world with their characters and make more profit than the original creator. you might say “sure, that means better content is created” but i’m more concerned about what’s fair and if the original creator is satisfactorily compensated. to me, the only way they will get compensated fairly is if they own their own worlds and have the ability to either keep profiting off it on their own or sell them. that’s what’s fair to me at least.
And they can still profit by creating new work, or selling people the authentic copy. People go see live music despite video existing. People buy designer bags despite bootlegs existing.>
tell that to a guy like george RR martin, or JK rowling, or whoever created dune that “okay, it’s been seven years. now everyone can make stuff in your own universe that you spent your entire time world building and can make money off your universe without your permission. you had 7 years, your time to make money on it is up. if someone can make a better story in your universe it’s theirs now for them to make profit on.”
If anyone can write a spiderman comic, then the ones that are the best will presumably do the best.>
not necessarily but i’ll agree with the premise. that still fucks over the original author who came up with the idea.
You gotta put the > before the text to make it a quote, not after.
tell that to a guy like george RR martin, or JK rowling, or whoever created dune that “okay, it’s been seven years. now everyone can make stuff in your own universe that you spent your entire time world building and can make money off your universe without your permission. you had 7 years, your time to make money on it is up. if someone can make a better story in your universe it’s theirs now for them to make profit on.”
I would be happy to tell these extremely rich people so. I don’t see this as a problem. That’s how human creativity worked for centuries.
my claim is that people wouldn’t create as much and it would encourage more spinoffs of existing ideas,
I just don’t think that’s true and I don’t think there’s a reason to believe it’s true. Go look at fan fiction. There’s whole thriving, rich, communities of it. Fascinating ideas and remixes. Almost all of it violates copyright. But it’s creative and people love it. Some of those authors go on to write their own original work. Why would you want to kill all of that?
I really don’t think it “fucks over” the author. They got their art out there. They inspired people. They can still sell copies. I don’t think they are entitled to a lengthy copyright.
The scenario where someone gets fucked over, in my mind, is they write something original and a megacorp scoops it up without payment or attribution. That’s something a short copyright could protect. So when some nobody writes a cool story or song, Disney can’t use their massive budget to capitalize on it without paying the author anything. That’s why I would accept a short copyright.
I’d rather break up megacorps and not have ultra-wealth, but that’s a separate topic.
Capitalism. The minority of people own stuff and call the shots.
I personally think a short copyright might be acceptable. A couple years. And following that open use with attribution.
I liked @givesomefucks comment. That copyright should last 14 years, (to me maybe idk that seems a little short but whatever) and then they can apply for extensions. if intellectual property is open to the public after just a couple years then nobody who put all the time, energy, and creativity that could’ve taken 10+ years of hard work (think GRRM’s ASOIAF) could be stolen and anyone could make any fan fiction and sell it within the universe he created without them having ever to have had to put in the work or had the talent that GRRM had himself.
Copyright is a very new concept compared to how long humanity has been telling stories. The idea that “oh no someone will make fan fiction!” is silly. That’s how shit was. People would take stories and change them. It’s not theft. It’s how you get Shakespeare.
what your suggesting would require a rework of our entire economic system and pretty much most economic systems which are market economies. people create things because of the value they can get from it. (that’s not the only reason but it’s a large driver of it). if people can’t profit off making a new IP, say like a new book for example with a whole new universe and characters, many people would stop writing new books in new IPs.
you’re basically proposing socialism for IPs, which i don’t think would be a conducive environment for people to want to make new IPs and would just lead to people creating constant spinoffs of other peoples creative ideas without an original thought of their own and without rewarding the original creator. there has to be some incentive to make something of your own, and right now that incentive is ownership and monetizing of that IP.
Counter argument: the entirety of human history where people created, without a system of copyright.
Furthermore, I would accept a short duration of copyright (perhaps 7 years) as a compromise. The current length is far too long.
Edit: and another thing! Disney! You think they made up Snow White?
through the entirety of human history rape, theft, slavery, and all other horrors were common. we outlawed them. things existing throughout human history is not an argument. also in terms of copyright length i agree there should be a time limit but seven years seems way too short. even george RR martin’s work was 30 years in the making. do you think after george RR martin released his first book 7 years after that everyone else could make their own ASOIAF books, movies, tv shows, etc without having to get permission or compensate george in any way? i feel like this is shafting the creator
You were saying people wouldn’t create without copyright. And yet, copyright didn’t exist for much of humanity. Therefore, copyright is not necessary for people to create. If it was, they wouldn’t have created all the stuff they did.
Slavery and other horrors are irrelevant
Edit:
7 years is plenty of time to profit.
And they can still profit by creating new work, or selling people the authentic copy. People go see live music despite video existing. People buy designer bags despite bootlegs existing.
If anyone can write a spiderman comic, then the ones that are the best will presumably do the best.
my claim isn’t that people wouldn’t create. that’s preposterous. my claim is that people wouldn’t create as much and it would encourage more spinoffs of existing ideas, (ideas better than the people making spinoffs could’ve made on their own) and less incentive to create your own new IPs. world building is a huge thing in creating IPs. someone might be a great story teller, but lack the ability to build worlds. that person could essentially steal the world building skill of someone else and make their own better story in that other person’s world with their characters and make more profit than the original creator. you might say “sure, that means better content is created” but i’m more concerned about what’s fair and if the original creator is satisfactorily compensated. to me, the only way they will get compensated fairly is if they own their own worlds and have the ability to either keep profiting off it on their own or sell them. that’s what’s fair to me at least.
tell that to a guy like george RR martin, or JK rowling, or whoever created dune that “okay, it’s been seven years. now everyone can make stuff in your own universe that you spent your entire time world building and can make money off your universe without your permission. you had 7 years, your time to make money on it is up. if someone can make a better story in your universe it’s theirs now for them to make profit on.”
not necessarily but i’ll agree with the premise. that still fucks over the original author who came up with the idea.
You gotta put the
>before the text to make it a quote, not after.I would be happy to tell these extremely rich people so. I don’t see this as a problem. That’s how human creativity worked for centuries.
I just don’t think that’s true and I don’t think there’s a reason to believe it’s true. Go look at fan fiction. There’s whole thriving, rich, communities of it. Fascinating ideas and remixes. Almost all of it violates copyright. But it’s creative and people love it. Some of those authors go on to write their own original work. Why would you want to kill all of that?
I really don’t think it “fucks over” the author. They got their art out there. They inspired people. They can still sell copies. I don’t think they are entitled to a lengthy copyright.
The scenario where someone gets fucked over, in my mind, is they write something original and a megacorp scoops it up without payment or attribution. That’s something a short copyright could protect. So when some nobody writes a cool story or song, Disney can’t use their massive budget to capitalize on it without paying the author anything. That’s why I would accept a short copyright.
I’d rather break up megacorps and not have ultra-wealth, but that’s a separate topic.