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."
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.
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.
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.
I'm not so much into music, as I am into books. Over several years, I read almost all of Marion Zimmer Bradley's books. I'm sure I missed some, but I read a LOT. Bradley's Darkover books, especially, inspired a huge fan club. Not only did Bradley tolerate, but she ENCOURAGED new authors to explore her Darkover universe. I would hate to count, but there are probably 5 or more published books about Bradley's Darkover than she ever published.
If I recall correctly, all of those derivative works pay tribute to Bradley, somewhere within the pages. To my knowledge, Bradley never was paid a cent on any of those derivative works. Bradley DID BENEFIT from them, in that they expanded her sphere of admirers, who in turn bought more of her original works.
This is the correct and proper way for copyright to work, regarding derivative works. Pay homage to the master who showed you the way, but you really owe him nothing more. Just like education - teachers teach to earn a living, but they HOPE that one or more of their students surpasses them. If/when a student does surpass his/her teachers, he isn't required to come back and pay them again for teaching him so well.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
If anything, Obama's election proves the current mindset of Americans (social welfare for everyone granted by big government.)
Odd perspective... I was thinking that it was more of an indication of the rejection of a government by the corporations, of the corporations, for the corporations.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
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.
Copyright is complicated.
If I change 5 words in somebody else's book and sign it with my name, it's plagarism.
If I change 5 words and leave the original author's name on it, it's an unauthorized edition.
If I rewrite a few chapters and sign it with both names, it's a collaboration.
If I rewrite a few chapters and sign it with my name only, it's a derivative work.
If I take the idea and characters and write an unrelated story, it's still a derivative work but might not be.
If I reuse random sentences from someone else's book in my own unrelated one, it's called sampling.
If I rewrite someone's book in modern slang, it's called a cover.
If I reuse the store and characters but set it in modern times, it's called a remake.
If I take the story, trivialize it in the most intellectually offensive way imaginable and show it to millions of people, with the original author maybe receiving lots of money and maybe not*, it's called a Hollywood movie.
*) see LOTR fiasco. Not an example of offensive trivializing though.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
There is a special way of handling it and it is a lot cheaper for them (ie they don't pay the one cent per songwriter that they would usually have to pay, it gets diluted down to deliberately make it affordable).
I don't know the exact mechanics of it, but the main thing about such remixes and merging of several songs together (like what many rap artists and techno bands do) is getting permission to do so.
Every so often the artist might run into a song or an artist which won't allow the use of a song/recording etc, but usually they allow it because they get paid for it (it's actually handled through agencies - in Australia it's APRA, I think it's BMI and ASCAP in US etc).
But the key is PERMISSION, PERMISSION,PERMISSION. The same holds true for when artists do versions of other artists songs. It really doesn't cost too much to re-record another artists song or to remix a song or mix several songs together. The only problems really come when you use them without permission and end up paying 110% of whatever your music earned (as per what happened to one band who used the James Bond theme in a song without permission).