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?
I don't think it really helps the industry as a whole though. Consider if Shakespeare wasn't allowed to adapt key pieces from The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet into Romeo and Juliet (and if both had been around using the US copyright system, he wouldn't have). Both were part of the same industry (literature and plays), yet I don't think that The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet would have made as much of money and helped the industry compared to Romeo and Juliet. It sure helps a few individuals, but not the industry.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission.
Explain again why I need "permission" to create something? If I use someone else's backstory, it doesn't lessen the amount of creativity I'm putting into my own creation.
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.
That seems like a non-sequitur to me. If I write a story about "Flying-mouse-male-offspring", how exactly does that "dilute" the creativity of someone else?
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.
There is virtually nothing wrong with our copyright law... that our founding fathers wrote for us
The geek has no sense of history.
When English authors could be easily and safely pirated there was little chance for an American to make it into print.
Writers at Emerson's level had to beg friends for the money to self-publish.
That's possible for the social and economic elite - an Adams or a Parkman - but much harder for the middle or lower class.
Here is a simple test: "I have a mule, her name is Sal. Fifteen miles on the Erie Canal."
Folk song or the New York stage? 1830 or 1905?
Now try the same with a fragment of any old American song or story you seem to remember.
I'm betting you will be wrong about the date and wrong about its origins.
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).
Well, no one perspective is the entire picture. Some people voted for him because he wasn't Bush. A lot of people also voted for him because he was saying that he'd enforce all these social programs. I'm all for social programs, but they have to be social programs that work. Almost nothing the government does actually works. (Look at social security, which is supposed to be a holding program. If it's only a holding program, why isn't there any money?)
I don't want to live in a country where you can sue somebody because you trespassed onto their property, started jumping on their trampoline and broke your neck. I also don't want to live in a country with big government. Or big corporations, which can harness enough economic power to be their own big governments. In order for that to happen, people need to start taking some responsibility. I don't know about the people around you, but when I talk about how the state wants to pass a bill that would allow them to track people without warrants, they ask me to stop talking, because they don't want to worry about it.