Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Should Encourage Derivative Works
Techdirt has an interesting look at copyright and the idea that an author is the originator of a new work. Instead, the piece suggests that all works are in some way based on the works of others (even our own copyright law), and the system should be much more encouraging of "remixing" work into new, unique experiences. "Friedman also points back to another recent post where he discusses the nature of content creation, based on a blog post by Rene Kita. In it, she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm. It's what we do naturally. It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music — which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it, that copyright was suddenly brought out to 'protect' such things."
It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music -- which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it, that copyright was suddenly brought out to "protect" such things."
Which actually brings me to ask an interesting question; I've always liked remixes of songs and find they're great listening if you like the original song aswell, and sometimes even if you dont. But how do they handle the copyright issues with labels? And how do those professional remixes create them anyways, do they get all the different tracks from labels or what?
Just look at software. How many developers learn to code without looking at examples? And why does good documentation contain lots of those?
Face it: once you've seen some code, from that point on everything you write can be considered a remix of all those, coupled with your own ideas.
You only need to look at, well anything to see that everything is a derivative work of another thing. That was the point of public domain. Almost all of Shakespeare's work references heavily or is based on another work. Heck, music, movies, etc. Are all based on each other, anyone could tell you that. This is why it is very important to have a limited copyright. Anything more than ~30 years is harmful to the industry.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
...So? The GPL isn't there to "lock up" a certain program but rather to do what copyright was meant to do, that is to allow the public to learn, use, distribute and adapt it while giving the creator of the work (very) limited control of it. I see nothing wrong with someone using GPL'd code to make a proprietary product so long as it doesn't "rip off" the creators of the work. For example, I would see nothing wrong with someone interested in making an OS looking at the Linux source code and adapting (but not just copying and pasting) the general structure of Linux for their own OS.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Maybe I misunderstand what they are saying, but if everything is copied or derived from something else, then I don't see the issue. Want a superhero comic? Just make your own character and Universe that copies the same thing Batman did. There is nothing stopping this type of "innovation".
But I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission. A lot of copyright holders put effort into creating a consistent Universe with high quality story lines. I think weakening what a copyright means can dilute people's creativity in this way.
I personally license everything artistic I do under a creative commons license because I am not personally vested in my works. But I know some people devote their lives to their creations, and I know they would not want to see their works getting lost in a pool of comic strips with Calvin peeing on stuff or Billy from Family Circus telling his mom to do obscene things with that carrot on the table.
Burn the witch ! Burn the Witch !
Reverend M. Mouse, Church of Disney
Queue the trolls spewing bullshit about copyright being just fine as it is, blah blah blah.
And yes, I meant queue.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
There is virtually nothing wrong with our copyright law... that our founding fathers wrote for us. It hasn't been until recently, when we demanded that it was everyone else's responsibility to take care of us, that the corporations stepped in and suddenly everything looks grim for us. Who would'a thought that giving up our responsibility (and therefore freedom) would lead us to a more tyrannical state?
If anything, Obama's election proves the current mindset of Americans (social welfare for everyone granted by big government.)
George Lucas okayed derivative works as long as anyone didn't profit off of it. That's one person controlling HIS copyrights. That's his CHOICE.
For example, do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights (my novels)? No. That's my CHOICE.
Not possible. The GPL opens up the "closed" program by default. In other words If I see GPL in your code, your program is GPL'd whether you like it or not. And I am allowed to copy, modify, and distribute it under GPL rules.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I wrote something related to this topic back in February, more from the point of view of a solution framework rather than the cultural root of problem (which I agree with). I think prevailing attitudes are stagnating any movement forward to a digital economy... from a developer point of view I abhor the idea of any else touching my code, but I publicly acknowledge the necessity of it :)
http://langhornewollamshram.blogspot.com/2009/02/information-age-bottleneck-part-ii.html
In it, she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm. It's what we do naturally.
AFAICT, the real point of talking about "derivative works" with copyright is just to close a loophole where someone might say, "Oh, I don't have the right to distribute your work? Well no problem, this isn't your work. I changed 5 words in the novel, which makes it a different work. This new work is mine."
Since then, some people have taken it to mean that all new copyrighted works should be 100% original, not inspired by anything, and not borrowing from anyone's past work. But that's impossible.
Lemme just copy what you did and then add a clock to it. Done! A derived work. Money please!
A white paper on remixing code was recently released by open-source code-sharing community LimeBits.com.
Consider a form of art unhindered by copyright: dance.
The age of Internet is also the golden age of dance. Little known or local styles like Melbourne Shuffle gain worldwide recognition. A plurality of others, like the many variants of Jumpstyle, Tecktonik or Hardstep are created, because the elements from many styles can be combined to form a new mix, while the Internet and Youtube in particular allows easy sharing of demos and tutorial videos that allow anyone to learn a particular move they like. Classical styles are becoming more popular as well. Never before in human history was there such a vibrant dance scene. And even though "anybody" can dance, professional dancers still have jobs (see Riverdance, Stomp, any music video).
There is a lesson to be learned from this.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo_books_gladwell
It questions the idea of information wanting to be free
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Makes me think of an old recording, circa the 1980s, of Malvina Reynolds singing "Little Boxes" at a live performance. That's the one that goes "Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of ticky-tacky, Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes all the same..." Although she wrote it, it was popularized by Pete Seeger.
Now, Pete Seeger is always talking about the "folk process" and the continuous process by which folk songs evolve, as singers change and add material. And Pete Seeger himself always, always, always puts his own twist on the songs he sings.
So Malvina Reynolds opens by saying, "Pete, you know, he does it a little different. And now, when I sing it, people say 'That's not the way it goes!' But it's my song! Yeah! I wrote it!" She doesn't sound angry about it, though, and I can't for a moment imagine her suing Pete Seeger.
But, yes, all creative people know that they borrow material from others... just as scientists know that they "stand on the shoulders of giants." Where would we be if Brahms hadn't been allowed to write "Variations on a Theme by Haydn?" Any entity that tries to stop the process of creative borrowing and transformation is the enemy of the artist, not his friend.
Copyright infringement should be restricted to mean the activities of the business entrepreneur who issues and sells near-exact reproductions of large-scale works, markets them in competition with the legitimate rightsholder, and clearly hijacks dollars that would otherwise have flowed to the author or artist. That's what everyone always thought copyright infringement meant, until the nuttiness started.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Actually, that's not exactly true. If there were a EULA, you might still be bound by it. The author of the original GPL'd work may be able to take action against the author of the derived work, but you are merely a third-party with no standing to enforce the GPL.
Where are my mod points when i actually *want* them?!?
This is a beautifully simplified explanation of the complexities involved in the spaghetti code we call copyright law.
Two thumbs up.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Artistic characters should only be protected by trademark. Artistic works which are covered by copyright should only include actual works (e.g. Steamboat Willie) and not abstractions of those works (e.g. the Mickey Mouse character). Somewhere in between there is a gray area between paraphrase (probably should be protected by copyright) and summary (shouldn't be restricted by copyright).
Art feeds off art. That much we should already know. Picasso had a tutor, and he had his heroes, just as this article notes that Shakespeare had his influences, and just as (oh I don't know, who is supposed to be the most original-sounding top 40 musician right now?) the Killers borrow a lot from country rock and 80s synthpop. Art is regenerative. It takes a truely rare and unique artist in any field to come up with a style totally of their own, the roots of which can't be found in earlier derivative works. In fact at this late hour I can't think of any. There's obviously the old saying, good artists emulate, great artists steal outright. My point being that if art is derivative, copyright only works against this, and thus hinders the regeneration and hence creation of new art.
The reason, the ONLY reason, why copyright came into existance was to encourage artists to produce and publish art. Until the advent of copyright, the only chance for artists was to keep their manuscripts secret until the very last moment so nobody could publish it first. The copies of a play, used by actors, were closely guarded, many theaters had security personnel whose only task was to ensure that no actor took his copy with him. Operas were practiced at secret locations so nobody could hear the new songs before they were performed the first time. Autors had to print as many copies of their books as possible so nobody would rip off their works. And many artists couldn't live off their works unless they found a wealthy patron, so many good artists could not produce more than a handful of pieces, a loss to humanity.
So copyright should enable artists to perform and reap the rewards of their works. They should produce and produce much, as much as possible, so their talent does not go to waste.
It was perverted in many ways by now, though. First of all, the lengh of copyright is beyond sensible. We're close to a decade of protection by now. Why should that encourage anyone to produce, if anything, it discourages the invention of new material. I'm fairly sure Disney would be very productive in the creation of a new icon if they could no longer milk Mickey and Donald. Did they produce any new icons lately? Hardly. They created new throwaway toons but nothing really creative or original. Nothing that could take the place of their old heroes which, let me be frank here, feel dated and stale. They're not the spirit of the century anymore. Or how about Marvel and DC, who have been milking the same superheroes for decades as well? Don't you think a new icon hero would have a positive impact on the spirit of the country?
Which leads to mixing, remixing and reuse of art. The lengthy protection periods ban this, disallowing rejuvenating those old icons with new ideas and a new spirit. Sure, we'd get a lot of crap. And of course "Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd" porn (as if we don't already...). But with so many talented people, the internet and the spread of information, don't you think we'd also get new and exciting ways to look at our old heroes of the past? A new angle, a new twist, a new beginning?
Same for music and movies. If you're strict about it, you can't even use the icon lines of movies that became part of our everyday life. Themes of music which are just too good to let them waste away lie around and nobody may use them to create the next piece of art. At least not unless he's willing to give a sizable amount of his reward to those that did nothing but provide the foundation. And they already got paid for that!
So if anything we need less protection for art, and here especially the time until it may be used by other artists to create new art out of it. At least if we want to continue creating. Else we'll eventually find out that every idea has been exploited, every song written, every comic drawn, every movie made, and some company is sitting on it like a hen on its eggs and we can't do much but stare blankly, wondering what happened to art.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Bullshit.
But why do you seem to imply that you should be banned from making money from your hard work putting a clock on something?
n.
1. A scarce supply; a lack
from
http://www.answers.com/dearth
Maybe that is what you meant, but I read your comment as if you meant 'multitude' or some such.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
... a system that doesn't accommodate for original works cannot possibly encourage derivative works.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
people don't choose to listen to "Mentallica" just because their albums are somewhat cheaper than Metallica's.
Citation needed. A cover band called The Countdown Singers puts out dozens of "best of $GENRE" albums, and people end up buying them despite negative reviews. And consider tribute albums: one or more artists cover a single artist's songs on an album.
I would like to point out that I'm male.
And thanks for the mention. First time anyone has considered me an authoritative source for anything.
Yours truly,
Rene "random ranting blogger" Kita
This right here is why the Organization for Transformative Works (http://transformativeworks.org/) exists.