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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.