This is definitely one of my favourite books of the year, if for no other reason than the simple familiarity of the writing. Reading it is like sitting in a pub with an especially expressive friend, listening to him tell you some crazy story about his past that you suspect must be embellished, but don't mind if it is. After a crazy day dealing with puffed-up psychopaths a few weeks ago, I read four chapters, and it's like the casual tone just evaporated all my tension. Wil sucks the pretension out of the air with his writing... it's just superb.
The one thing I'm hoping for is a work of fiction next... I know it's an extra-daunting task, but I'm sure it'd kick ass.
Exactly! The TFA has a definite agenda... in reality, this is a competitive move by Maxtor. You have to do extraordinary things to stand out in this global economy.
Assuming that the core concept of Intellectual Property is legitimate (which one can never assume on Slashdot, so let's just pretend it is for the sake of argument), what's wrong with that? Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?
It is, but not in an exclusionary way (as the email implies). I believe that's an antri-trust sorta thing.
The most astounding part is the claim that the labels structured the deal so that they wouldn't have to pay the artists any of the settlement money. For a bunch of companies that constantly whine "think of the artists", that little gem is going to bite them. Every single participant in every single studio-produced song, TV show or movie is going to be calling their overlords up asking what their share of the $50M is now. True or not, this email is going to make the Google/YouTube deal a lot more interesting...
The law also protects honest businesses from the mafia, but that doesn't stop them from paying for extra "protection". And this isn't Cuban's take... this is an email that he reprinted that verified his take. Much more so than I think most people would have guessed...
Actually, I think after this, Mark Cuban has proved himself to be quite brilliant. He said YouTube was a bad investment, saw a post detailing shady dealings behind the acquisition, made it very public, and will probably MAKE YouTube a bad investment after all. I believe the original post (on pho) was possibly meant to alert artist-rights folks to the swindle-in-progress, but once he got his hands on it... wow.
From the sounds of it, one particular part is specualtion, and the rest is probably true... but I don't know which part it is. But either way, the mere broadcasting of the speculation should lead to more investigation and trauma. Whee!
As they are required to do, by the terms of trademark law. If you fail to "vigorously defend" trademarks, you could lose the protection. Again, you're not talking about copyrights with fanfic. You're talking about trademarks.
I would submit that in a lot of cases, uninformed C&Ds are issued and heeded without trademark protection backing them up. And it's the state of overly-aggressive copyright law that makes it plausible that the threat is real. But yes, there is a distinction, so I'll agree with you there. I think it's a shady area in practice, but you're definitely right.
I've given you an example of some great fanfic of the ages (the False Quixote). Please cite a counter-example of real world fanfic that succeeds in rising even to the level of a licensed Star Wars novel.
Can't think of anything off the top of my head. But that's not to say there isn't anything, just that I am not well-read enough to know about it. I would also say that your prejudice against popular culture may blind you to great works right under your nose (again, no evidence, just a feeling). If Charles Dickens time travelled to 2006 and wrote an epic novel about the trials of Harry Potter, would it be garbage?
And even then, to me, no Star Wars novel will ever be considered great literature, licensed or not. If you don't understand why, then I submit that you are woefully behind on your reading. My recommendation is to branch out of the Star Wars aisle.
I actually don't read books like that at all, I'm just saying that the Star Wars mythology is the kind that lends itself to great literature... just because George Lucas hasn't hit on some pure undeniable genius from his own creation doesn't mean it's not there. If it took Shakespeare and his contemporaries a few iterations of each play to make something we consider great, maybe the same is going to be said for Darth Vader one day. Maybe not. But (blurring trademarks and copyright together into a single blob here), the state of today's IP laws make it impossible to find out.
And here's where I cheat a bit and ask for your insights: if Mickey Mouse's copyright were to expire right now, then it'd be legal for me to sell copies of his "free" cartoons without fear of a lawsuit. If Mickey is then a public domain entity, would trademarks actually apply to him anymore? That is to say, can you exert trademark control over public domain art? Or would that simply be a question of "the static silhouetted head of Mickey Mouse is trademarked", but the character himself moving about the screen is now?
Or, to bring it back to Star Wars (shoulda picked some other pop culture property), if that series were public domain today, would the trademarks have much value? It seems to me that deflating modern copyright would almost, by extension, deflate the related trademarks. But CC doesn't fix that, I guess.
Ah, so related question: if I release a book CC-SA, I can't very well trademark any of the elements of that book, can I? Am I making any sense?
Fanfic may be completely legal under copyright law, but the concept of fair use is, too. All it takes is a C&D to frighten people away, which large corporations use willy-nilly. It's not as if most CC licenses communicate more rights to the end-user than normal copyright does, its main function is to say: "We're not going to come after you with a stick for enjoying this work". A fear of legal action is enough to keep people from exploring things, whether the law backs up the threat or not.
As for whether fanfic can rise to the level of great literature... I'd say there's as good a chance as not, really. Honestly, I don't see the difference between a Star Wars novel and something written about the fall of Troy (on a conceptual level at least). If you write off a whole class of art as being frivolous simply because it's derivative, you might be missing something great. And if you try and restrict that realm from existing, you're certainly losing something... whether it's a real work of art or just a dry run for something else. ('Fanfic' is a bad term, too, because it carries a negative connotation... but it's shorthand for what it means, I guess, so we're stuck with it... but don't just the book by its cover)
The debate isn't a manifestation of the modern era, but, like you said, the modern era's given the originating artist (or, more likely, the corporation that owns the copyright) a huge arsenal of weapons to put unreasonable dampeners on creativity. Personally, I'd love for all works to go public domain after 7-14 years, and then let the rest of the world build upon the stuff that's out there. Homer didn't just make that stuff up off the top of his head... and there might be fantastic things we can't imagine right now because nobody's given the right to explore them.
Copyright is still a good idea, because without it a company like Disney could take a song someone posted for free on the web, press a million CDs and make a fortune off it without any compensation to the original author. And until the general public learns to voluntarily support artists (moving from a product to appreciation model), there needs to be some level of legal protection for artists. Still, MODERN copyright is a bad idea, and should be fixed.
That's true, but that's a problem that doesn't really need an answer. Using copyright to control the public's perception of your work is probably doomed to failure. If the public really enjoyed a free book about Lestat the vegetarian nazi, then perhaps Anne Rice's interpretation isn't quite as valid anymore. It's not to say that you can earn any money from it without her permission... and if she really dislikes what you've done, she won't grant you the right to earn money... but if the world wants a vegetarian nazi vampire at the expense of the original Lestat, that's just the way the wind's blowing. I would imagine the next "regular vampire thing" book wouldn't sell well anyway. This is where we get down to the "the author doesn't have the right to income"... if you write something nobody enjoys, you won't get money for it. Really, sequels by the same author can be viewed as derivative works as well... the first may be fantastically popular, but if the climate has changed since it was published, there's nothing to say anyone NEEDS to praise the follow-up to the same extent. Authors might say otherwise, but they'd be buying into their own hype. Each work has to prove its own worth.
Anne Rice owns the rights to the character Lestat. If you get her permission, that's fine. But if you're trying to take her creation and make money with it without giving her what she's due... well, "go away" covers it.
That's exactly it, though. Right now you can (and sometimes will) get sued just for writing about Lestat, regardless of whether or not you attempted to make money off it. If people felt free to explore tangents on other authors' works, some truly fantastic art might get made, and the original author would (hopefully, though apparently not in the case of OSC) happily authorize the commercial use of that work for a reasonable royalty fee. As it stands, a pool of revenue for authors is being denied because they are hoarding their copyright too tightly. Why, if they looked at it the way they look at filesharing systems, I think they'd have to sue themselves for lost revenue!
"Derivative authors"... right. I prefer to think of them as "authors who can't come up with interesting characters on their own." That's not copyright sanity you're advocating --- it's thievery.
There are a lot of characters in popular culture that are really just slight variations on well-used themes. In most cases, it's not the character itself that makes a great work, it's the things the character does in the course of a story. Some people find it a lot easier to imagine fantastic new adventures for a character they've already become acquainted with, rather than coming up with one themselves. It doesn't lessen their artistic merit that they base their creativity on someone else's invention. If I wrote a story about Henry II of England, is my story trash because I didn't make him up?
The idea is that authors are adding to the overall cultural memory of the world when they create. Lestat is part of our shared mythology, as it were. For a time, only Anne Rice can profit from his use. But the further exploration of the themes and elements of literature, art or drama is what moves Interview with the Vampire from transient "product" to cultural milestone. It's not thievery, it's enrichment.
Legally, I'd say the line is drawn as such: You may creative derivative works using elements from this creation, but commercial exploitation of those works must be approved by the original author. Unless they specifically waive that right. The blurring of copyright at the moment means that people avoid writing derivatives because there's no distinction between commercial and non-commercial works. If there's a chance I'll be sued for writing something, I really have to weigh how much I want to do it. Copyright shouldn't be a weapon to stop people from exploring new ideas based around other artists' works... it should be used as a tool to prevent the unauthorized commercialization of works. Narrowing the focus back to what it was meant to be would cut back on litigation and immediately make the world a more creative place.
If you were going to make a movie that was a direct copy of "Interview with the Vampire" except with slightly different names, I'd say that's a situation where the law should smack you in the face. If, on the other hand, you were to write a book about Lestat that branched out from the original story and made a whole new creation that enriches the character... if it were any good, I think it would be in the best interests of the producers that it was made. They might have a sequel on their hands. Right now, those things still go on, but the derivative authors are under constant threat they might get sued JUST FOR WRITING, not even selling things. Culture (and producers) get richer when creativity isn't held back by too many legalities.
This is another great example of why I think we need to make more (and more prominent) CC-only aggregators. It's stupid and frivolous, but a top 40 countdown of the best indie CC songs on the web, wrapped up in all the soulless glamour that the offline world embraces... it would probably help people make the transition, and give web artists a better chance at making a big impact. If artists saw a market in CC music online (which would involve web folks spending some money now and then), free content would become a lot more mainstream.
Authors have the right to be compensated under CC licenses by choosing CC-NC-SA. All a CC license does in that case is makes it clear to the readers of the book that they can enjoy the fair use privileges we used to take for granted. There's a distinction between consumers and resellers there that modern copyright fanatics forget: the law was not meant to keep me from giving my copy of Harry Potter to my friend, it was meant to keep me from printing a thousand copies without permission. Copyright's trying to remove all those rights, and CC is an attempt to clarify them again.
But the bigger issue is whether Jack Ryan is actually the exclusive property of Tom Clancy as a concept. Fanfic isn't strictly legal if you're a copyright maximalist. Exploring the characters and ideas that other authors have created should be encouraged. "Patriot Games" may not be the best book in the world, but it could be that someone out there will write the Best Novel of All Time based on a character Mr Clancy created. But no one will try that if they think they're going to get sued. CC content creates an environment where derivative works can be made without fear of retribution, and quite possibly lead to more revenue streams for the originating artist.
CC does not have to mean "nobody gets paid". It's more about "nobody has to be scared of lawyers".
That's a big problem for the CC movement at the moment... it DOES require willpower for the average person to go "free". It's a lot easier in software, but entertainment is still the domain of the big players. And it's not really a valid argument that big companies are the only ones making good stuff... but they spend a lot of money to maintain the image that non-Big Label content is amateurish. You "hit it big" when you sign with a multinational company, and until then, you're just building your portfolio.
Open source software folks are probably the best ones to realize the flaw in that argument, since by the same standards something like Linux would only be for amateurs. But still I think we all view indie content as necessarily lower-quality, which makes the whole thing a self-fulfilling prophecy... artists see no reason to be professional amateurs so they DO hold out for the big labels. We'd rather watch Firefly on DVD than support some of the cool things web artists (working under CC) want to do.
If everyone that reads Slashdot pledged to spend $10 a month on CC content, I bet you'd see a lot more quality content emerge, and it'd require a lot less willpower to swear off copyrighted things completely.
Slashdot Mirror
This is definitely one of my favourite books of the year, if for no other reason than the simple familiarity of the writing. Reading it is like sitting in a pub with an especially expressive friend, listening to him tell you some crazy story about his past that you suspect must be embellished, but don't mind if it is. After a crazy day dealing with puffed-up psychopaths a few weeks ago, I read four chapters, and it's like the casual tone just evaporated all my tension. Wil sucks the pretension out of the air with his writing... it's just superb.
The one thing I'm hoping for is a work of fiction next... I know it's an extra-daunting task, but I'm sure it'd kick ass.
Yes, but only 15 million of them are part of the government program to help the Russian economy...
There's a protest against capturing rainbows going on today in NY... looks like it's a murky ethical question...
Apparently they still have bugs to work out... some people are reporting massive data loss in the beta program...
It seems there was some confusion about what kinds of devices you could install Leopard on, so these numbers may not hold up for long....
I'm not sure, but I've submitted a ticket and expect it will be corrected in the next version of this page. My apologies.
Microsoft is displeased at the leak. Apparently it's not a wishlist at all.
Exactly! The TFA has a definite agenda... in reality, this is a competitive move by Maxtor. You have to do extraordinary things to stand out in this global economy.
The one hidden in the Mona Lisa has lyrics too. Da Vinci was one busy beaver.
The most astounding part is the claim that the labels structured the deal so that they wouldn't have to pay the artists any of the settlement money. For a bunch of companies that constantly whine "think of the artists", that little gem is going to bite them. Every single participant in every single studio-produced song, TV show or movie is going to be calling their overlords up asking what their share of the $50M is now. True or not, this email is going to make the Google/YouTube deal a lot more interesting...
The law also protects honest businesses from the mafia, but that doesn't stop them from paying for extra "protection". And this isn't Cuban's take... this is an email that he reprinted that verified his take. Much more so than I think most people would have guessed...
Actually, I think after this, Mark Cuban has proved himself to be quite brilliant. He said YouTube was a bad investment, saw a post detailing shady dealings behind the acquisition, made it very public, and will probably MAKE YouTube a bad investment after all. I believe the original post (on pho) was possibly meant to alert artist-rights folks to the swindle-in-progress, but once he got his hands on it... wow.
From the sounds of it, one particular part is specualtion, and the rest is probably true... but I don't know which part it is. But either way, the mere broadcasting of the speculation should lead to more investigation and trauma. Whee!
Overly casual explanation? That I can do.
Also good if your friend speaks German or Chinese (or a bunch of other languages).
A bit light on real-world examples, though.
Can't think of anything off the top of my head. But that's not to say there isn't anything, just that I am not well-read enough to know about it. I would also say that your prejudice against popular culture may blind you to great works right under your nose (again, no evidence, just a feeling). If Charles Dickens time travelled to 2006 and wrote an epic novel about the trials of Harry Potter, would it be garbage?
I actually don't read books like that at all, I'm just saying that the Star Wars mythology is the kind that lends itself to great literature... just because George Lucas hasn't hit on some pure undeniable genius from his own creation doesn't mean it's not there. If it took Shakespeare and his contemporaries a few iterations of each play to make something we consider great, maybe the same is going to be said for Darth Vader one day. Maybe not. But (blurring trademarks and copyright together into a single blob here), the state of today's IP laws make it impossible to find out.
And here's where I cheat a bit and ask for your insights: if Mickey Mouse's copyright were to expire right now, then it'd be legal for me to sell copies of his "free" cartoons without fear of a lawsuit. If Mickey is then a public domain entity, would trademarks actually apply to him anymore? That is to say, can you exert trademark control over public domain art? Or would that simply be a question of "the static silhouetted head of Mickey Mouse is trademarked", but the character himself moving about the screen is now?
Or, to bring it back to Star Wars (shoulda picked some other pop culture property), if that series were public domain today, would the trademarks have much value? It seems to me that deflating modern copyright would almost, by extension, deflate the related trademarks. But CC doesn't fix that, I guess.
Ah, so related question: if I release a book CC-SA, I can't very well trademark any of the elements of that book, can I? Am I making any sense?
Fanfic may be completely legal under copyright law, but the concept of fair use is, too. All it takes is a C&D to frighten people away, which large corporations use willy-nilly. It's not as if most CC licenses communicate more rights to the end-user than normal copyright does, its main function is to say: "We're not going to come after you with a stick for enjoying this work". A fear of legal action is enough to keep people from exploring things, whether the law backs up the threat or not.
As for whether fanfic can rise to the level of great literature... I'd say there's as good a chance as not, really. Honestly, I don't see the difference between a Star Wars novel and something written about the fall of Troy (on a conceptual level at least). If you write off a whole class of art as being frivolous simply because it's derivative, you might be missing something great. And if you try and restrict that realm from existing, you're certainly losing something... whether it's a real work of art or just a dry run for something else. ('Fanfic' is a bad term, too, because it carries a negative connotation... but it's shorthand for what it means, I guess, so we're stuck with it... but don't just the book by its cover)
The debate isn't a manifestation of the modern era, but, like you said, the modern era's given the originating artist (or, more likely, the corporation that owns the copyright) a huge arsenal of weapons to put unreasonable dampeners on creativity. Personally, I'd love for all works to go public domain after 7-14 years, and then let the rest of the world build upon the stuff that's out there. Homer didn't just make that stuff up off the top of his head... and there might be fantastic things we can't imagine right now because nobody's given the right to explore them.
That's true, but that's a problem that doesn't really need an answer. Using copyright to control the public's perception of your work is probably doomed to failure. If the public really enjoyed a free book about Lestat the vegetarian nazi, then perhaps Anne Rice's interpretation isn't quite as valid anymore. It's not to say that you can earn any money from it without her permission... and if she really dislikes what you've done, she won't grant you the right to earn money... but if the world wants a vegetarian nazi vampire at the expense of the original Lestat, that's just the way the wind's blowing. I would imagine the next "regular vampire thing" book wouldn't sell well anyway. This is where we get down to the "the author doesn't have the right to income"... if you write something nobody enjoys, you won't get money for it. Really, sequels by the same author can be viewed as derivative works as well... the first may be fantastically popular, but if the climate has changed since it was published, there's nothing to say anyone NEEDS to praise the follow-up to the same extent. Authors might say otherwise, but they'd be buying into their own hype. Each work has to prove its own worth.
There are a lot of characters in popular culture that are really just slight variations on well-used themes. In most cases, it's not the character itself that makes a great work, it's the things the character does in the course of a story. Some people find it a lot easier to imagine fantastic new adventures for a character they've already become acquainted with, rather than coming up with one themselves. It doesn't lessen their artistic merit that they base their creativity on someone else's invention. If I wrote a story about Henry II of England, is my story trash because I didn't make him up?
The idea is that authors are adding to the overall cultural memory of the world when they create. Lestat is part of our shared mythology, as it were. For a time, only Anne Rice can profit from his use. But the further exploration of the themes and elements of literature, art or drama is what moves Interview with the Vampire from transient "product" to cultural milestone. It's not thievery, it's enrichment.
Dude, you totally ripped off the wording to my next book! Have you been reading my email again? I've gotta change my password...
Legally, I'd say the line is drawn as such: You may creative derivative works using elements from this creation, but commercial exploitation of those works must be approved by the original author. Unless they specifically waive that right.
The blurring of copyright at the moment means that people avoid writing derivatives because there's no distinction between commercial and non-commercial works. If there's a chance I'll be sued for writing something, I really have to weigh how much I want to do it. Copyright shouldn't be a weapon to stop people from exploring new ideas based around other artists' works... it should be used as a tool to prevent the unauthorized commercialization of works. Narrowing the focus back to what it was meant to be would cut back on litigation and immediately make the world a more creative place.
If you were going to make a movie that was a direct copy of "Interview with the Vampire" except with slightly different names, I'd say that's a situation where the law should smack you in the face. If, on the other hand, you were to write a book about Lestat that branched out from the original story and made a whole new creation that enriches the character... if it were any good, I think it would be in the best interests of the producers that it was made. They might have a sequel on their hands. Right now, those things still go on, but the derivative authors are under constant threat they might get sued JUST FOR WRITING, not even selling things. Culture (and producers) get richer when creativity isn't held back by too many legalities.
This is another great example of why I think we need to make more (and more prominent) CC-only aggregators. It's stupid and frivolous, but a top 40 countdown of the best indie CC songs on the web, wrapped up in all the soulless glamour that the offline world embraces... it would probably help people make the transition, and give web artists a better chance at making a big impact. If artists saw a market in CC music online (which would involve web folks spending some money now and then), free content would become a lot more mainstream.
But wouldn't you rather watch pr0^wcontent made by people you know?
Actually... er... never mind. Carry on.
Authors have the right to be compensated under CC licenses by choosing CC-NC-SA. All a CC license does in that case is makes it clear to the readers of the book that they can enjoy the fair use privileges we used to take for granted. There's a distinction between consumers and resellers there that modern copyright fanatics forget: the law was not meant to keep me from giving my copy of Harry Potter to my friend, it was meant to keep me from printing a thousand copies without permission. Copyright's trying to remove all those rights, and CC is an attempt to clarify them again.
But the bigger issue is whether Jack Ryan is actually the exclusive property of Tom Clancy as a concept. Fanfic isn't strictly legal if you're a copyright maximalist. Exploring the characters and ideas that other authors have created should be encouraged. "Patriot Games" may not be the best book in the world, but it could be that someone out there will write the Best Novel of All Time based on a character Mr Clancy created. But no one will try that if they think they're going to get sued. CC content creates an environment where derivative works can be made without fear of retribution, and quite possibly lead to more revenue streams for the originating artist.
CC does not have to mean "nobody gets paid". It's more about "nobody has to be scared of lawyers".
That's a big problem for the CC movement at the moment... it DOES require willpower for the average person to go "free". It's a lot easier in software, but entertainment is still the domain of the big players. And it's not really a valid argument that big companies are the only ones making good stuff... but they spend a lot of money to maintain the image that non-Big Label content is amateurish. You "hit it big" when you sign with a multinational company, and until then, you're just building your portfolio.
Open source software folks are probably the best ones to realize the flaw in that argument, since by the same standards something like Linux would only be for amateurs. But still I think we all view indie content as necessarily lower-quality, which makes the whole thing a self-fulfilling prophecy... artists see no reason to be professional amateurs so they DO hold out for the big labels. We'd rather watch Firefly on DVD than support some of the cool things web artists (working under CC) want to do.
If everyone that reads Slashdot pledged to spend $10 a month on CC content, I bet you'd see a lot more quality content emerge, and it'd require a lot less willpower to swear off copyrighted things completely.