The video focuses on Hollywood, but I thin the same applies to ALL sectors of the defunct entertainment industry with an unhealthy those of narcissism on top.
That's one take on it. Although, a lot people working in Hollywood don't really get to know what they are working on until they see the final result.
Most of the actors on Star Wars didn't realize what a big deal it was until they saw the end result on screen.
Iowahawk has a similar take on it:
IowahawkSkinSuit.png
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 25, 2024, 10:41:38 AMThat's one take on it. Although, a lot people working in Hollywood don't really get to know what they are working on until they see the final result.
Most of the actors on Star Wars didn't realize what a big deal it was until they saw the end result on screen.
Iowahawk has a similar take on it:
IowahawkSkinSuit.png
I'm not sure the video is talking about the actors tho, low level fuctards ARE low level.
IMHO the video is talking about the writers, directors and executives... Who do know what movie is being made, who don't know (anymore) what makes a good movie and are busy imitating good movies from the past without knowing what make them work and thus changing the core while maintaining the skin suit, the outer shell.
The only way to fix this problem is to reform copyright law. Right now it lasts for a century or longer depending on specifics. We need to reduce copyright term lengths so that these properties enter public domain while the fans are still alive and spry enough to remix them.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 25, 2024, 12:42:29 PMThe only way to fix this problem is to reform copyright law. Right now it lasts for a century or longer depending on specifics. We need to reduce copyright term lengths so that these properties enter public domain while the fans are still alive and spry enough to remix them.
Money my dude, where are the fans getting the millions needed to make a proper Star Wars movie?
Under the exact same copyright laws we used to get decent to good and sometimes excellent entertainment, for instance BtAS, now you can't find anything that gets even close to that.
More than a copyright issue it's an ideological one.
Now, Tarzan is in the public domain, where are the fan made movies, tv shows, comics or novels? Conan is in the same boat together with countless other properties.
Winnie the pooh got into public domain and what did we get? Horror.
A cheaper one, Sherlock Holmes, anything published before 1923 IS in the public domain, it's way cheaper to produce a movie about him, yet we get none, what about a novel? Nope, not happening.
Lot's of superheroes ARE in the public domain, yet we get nothing or we get it from an already established publisher, just like with REH and ERB, no fan made comics, tv shows, novels, nothing.
It takes lots of money and time.
Which is why the corporations are pushing to have AI regulated, so the regular guy can't use it to compete with them. And even that takes a lot of money (although much less than the regular way), because you need a very powerful computer to really run those tools.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMMore than a copyright issue it's an ideological one.
Corpos don't want to adapt anything that isn't already guaranteed success and to which they have exclusive ownership. That's why they exploit only nostalgic properties now.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMNow, Tarzan is in the public domain, where are the fan made movies, tv shows, comics or novels? Conan is in the same boat together with countless other properties.
The Burroughs Estate owns the trademarks.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMA cheaper one, Sherlock Holmes, anything published before 1923 IS in the public domain, it's way cheaper to produce a movie about him, yet we get none, what about a novel? Nope, not happening.
There are a few, actually. Like this one: https://www.amazon.com/Echoes-Sherlock-Holmes-Stories-Inspired/dp/1681772256
There's tv shows like
Elementary, which was made when they couldn't get the rights to the UK series
Sherlock.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMLot's of superheroes ARE in the public domain, yet we get nothing or we get it from an already established publisher, just like with REH and ERB, no fan made comics, tv shows, novels, nothing.
There are people making their own cinematic universes with public domain superheroes, like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJXg_k5yVU
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMIt takes lots of money and time.
If you look for them then you will find a number of low budget indie works based on public domain works. But they're still hampered. The excessive copyright lengths result in works that weren't already hugely popular being doomed to fall into obscurity by the time they enter public domain. Almost nobody knows they exist and there's no financial incentive to adapt them.
This is an ongoing problem with excessive copyright lengths. That and abandonware. Many vital industries rely on abandonware to run their infrastructure, which they cannot practically replace and cannot legally modify, resulting in various data breaches and ransomware attacks. It's a national security threat that's not gonna be fixed unless copyright law is reformed.
George Lucas wasn't hampered by copyright law when he tried to make Flash Gordon. When he couldn't get the rights, he made his own version of Flash Gordon, with Jedi and Death Stars.
Steven Spielberg wasn't hampered by copyright law when he made E.T. The Extraterrestrial.
Copyright law is a non-issue, and the arguments over it are usually made by people who lack imagination, creativity and talent. We already have a bunch of hacks making a mess of current franchises. I don't see how expanding the pool of idiots would improve an IP.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2024, 04:46:07 PMGeorge Lucas wasn't hampered by copyright law when he tried to make Flash Gordon. When he couldn't get the rights, he made his own version of Flash Gordon, with Jedi and Death Stars.
Steven Spielberg wasn't hampered by copyright law when he made E.T. The Extraterrestrial.
Copyright law is a non-issue, and the arguments over it are usually made by people who lack imagination, creativity and talent. We already have a bunch of hacks making a mess of current franchises. I don't see how expanding the pool of idiots would improve an IP.
Tell that to the creators who lost control of their work to apathetic corpos. If they or any other creative person could just use their creativity to make a replacement, then why haven't they?
Some IPs are so detailed and idiosyncratic that's it's not technically feasible to make a replacement that doesn't risk copyright infringement. You'll never know if it does infringe unless you get a C&D, and at that point all the work you did is wasted.
And if you do put in the work, there is a lot of work to do. Beyond just making the work, which can be a huge endeavor, you also need to advertise and so on. For most people, it's just not worth it.
Like, I have a ton of ideas for settings based on stuff I liked that are simple enough that I don't need to worry about copyright infringement. But working on just one setting is a huge endeavor and it's a crapshoot as to whether I'd get an audience.
Storytelling is an iterative process. For thousands of years humans have retold stories they heard from others. Then in the last 100 years somebody said "no, you can't do that anymore, this company owns that story for a century!" This is ridiculous and it's harming our cultural heritage. I'm all for compensating creators for their work, but locking stories in a vault until all but the most popular are forgotten is ridiculous.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 25, 2024, 06:07:12 PMQuote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2024, 04:46:07 PMGeorge Lucas wasn't hampered by copyright law when he tried to make Flash Gordon. When he couldn't get the rights, he made his own version of Flash Gordon, with Jedi and Death Stars.
Steven Spielberg wasn't hampered by copyright law when he made E.T. The Extraterrestrial.
Copyright law is a non-issue, and the arguments over it are usually made by people who lack imagination, creativity and talent. We already have a bunch of hacks making a mess of current franchises. I don't see how expanding the pool of idiots would improve an IP.
Tell that to the creators who lost control of their work to apathetic corpos. If they or any other creative person could just use their creativity to make a replacement, then why haven't they?
Star Trek wouldn't exist without Parmount. Babylon 5 wouldn't exist without Warner Brothers. Etc, etc. These corporations dump money into making these shows, they deserve to get some return on their investment. The money gotta come from somewhere. I agree that creators should have more consideration and also get reasonable treatment regarding profit and ownership. That's something to be hammered out at the contract stage.
As to why they haven't made anything else new, you'd have to ask them. Lucas and Spielberg made a ton of films. Labyrinth, Jaws, etc, etc. Some original, some adaptations. Some creators seem to be one hit wonders.
QuoteSome IPs are so detailed and idiosyncratic that's it's not technically feasible to make a replacement that doesn't risk copyright infringement. You'll never know if it does infringe unless you get a C&D, and at that point all the work you did is wasted.
Lawyers gonna lawyer. I agree that IPs shouldn't be so broad as to be condusive to lawfare to crush other similar content, but also the creator should be able to profit from their creation without worrying that someone will just steal their lunch. A fine line to walk.
QuoteAnd if you do put in the work, there is a lot of work to do. Beyond just making the work, which can be a huge endeavor, you also need to advertise and so on. For most people, it's just not worth it.
Like, I have a ton of ideas for settings based on stuff I liked that are simple enough that I don't need to worry about copyright infringement. But working on just one setting is a huge endeavor and it's a crapshoot as to whether I'd get an audience.
That is a risk every creator faces if they want to profit off their creation. Star Wars could have cratered and made everything 20th Century Fox and Lucas put into the film a waste of time and money. But Lucas wanted to make that damn film, and he put in the time and effort and (someone else's) money and took that chance. Talk is cheap. Everyone has ideas. Can you actually make something out of that idea? Strazynski spent years of his life working on cartoons and network shows to get to the point where he could create Babylon 5. Anything worth doing is rarely easy.
QuoteStorytelling is an iterative process. For thousands of years humans have retold stories they heard from others. Then in the last 100 years somebody said "no, you can't do that anymore, this company owns that story for a century!" This is ridiculous and it's harming our cultural heritage. I'm all for compensating creators for their work, but locking stories in a vault until all but the most popular are forgotten is ridiculous.
Like I said, I really don't care. While the details about copyright law can and should be up for scrutiny, the general idea that they should be relaxed so someone can tell stories specifically about Mickey Mouse is a non issue when people come up with original IP all the time. And it sounds a lot like lazy, unimaginative people just want to ride on the coattails of success instead of putting in the effort to make their own thing.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2024, 07:16:58 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 25, 2024, 06:07:12 PMStorytelling is an iterative process. For thousands of years humans have retold stories they heard from others. Then in the last 100 years somebody said "no, you can't do that anymore, this company owns that story for a century!" This is ridiculous and it's harming our cultural heritage. I'm all for compensating creators for their work, but locking stories in a vault until all but the most popular are forgotten is ridiculous.
Like I said, I really don't care. While the details about copyright law can and should be up for scrutiny, the general idea that they should be relaxed so someone can tell stories specifically about Mickey Mouse is a non issue when people come up with original IP all the time. And it sounds a lot like lazy, unimaginative people just want to ride on the coattails of success instead of putting in the effort to make their own thing.
I disagree about imagination and effort. Relating this to RPGs a bit -- I frequently run RPGs set in established properties like Middle Earth, Star Wars, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. Doing these is usually *more* work than creating my own whole-cloth setting, because I'm trying to research and be true to the setting, and create stuff that fits it.
I *could* create an unrelated setting with Azuha and Cadians and Trainu (i.e. original creations) instead, but I think it's interesting and challenging to create within an established setting.
As BoxCrayonTales says, this is how myth has generally worked, and how Shakespeare worked. People would tell their own versions of existing stories. Copyright does go back centuries - but it was established only for copying of whole books. The concept of copyrighting a character like Sherlock Holmes is a modern invention.
Quote from: jhkim on July 26, 2024, 12:50:15 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2024, 07:16:58 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 25, 2024, 06:07:12 PMStorytelling is an iterative process. For thousands of years humans have retold stories they heard from others. Then in the last 100 years somebody said "no, you can't do that anymore, this company owns that story for a century!" This is ridiculous and it's harming our cultural heritage. I'm all for compensating creators for their work, but locking stories in a vault until all but the most popular are forgotten is ridiculous.
Like I said, I really don't care. While the details about copyright law can and should be up for scrutiny, the general idea that they should be relaxed so someone can tell stories specifically about Mickey Mouse is a non issue when people come up with original IP all the time. And it sounds a lot like lazy, unimaginative people just want to ride on the coattails of success instead of putting in the effort to make their own thing.
I disagree about imagination and effort. Relating this to RPGs a bit -- I frequently run RPGs set in established properties like Middle Earth, Star Wars, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. Doing these is usually *more* work than creating my own whole-cloth setting, because I'm trying to research and be true to the setting, and create stuff that fits it.
I'm specifically criticizing people who want to make money off of an established IP, and want to do it without the constraints of copyright law. My contention is that if they want to make Star Wars money, they can make their own characters and settings, just like the original creators did.
Hell, considering the "quality" of current stories set in franchise IP, I would relish some new stories, new settings and new characters.
QuoteAs BoxCrayonTales says, this is how myth has generally worked, and how Shakespeare worked. People would tell their own versions of existing stories. Copyright does go back centuries - but it was established only for copying of whole books. The concept of copyrighting a character like Sherlock Holmes is a modern invention.
No one is stopping you from telling your friends a story about Superman. If you want to publish it and make money off it, you have to deal with copyright law. Shit, that's where 50 Shades of Grey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey#:~:text=The%20Fifty%20Shades%20trilogy%20was,pen%20name%20%22Snowqueen%20Icedragon%22.) came from.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 03:09:42 AMNo one is stopping you from telling your friends a story about Superman. If you want to publish it and make money off it, you have to deal with copyright law. Shit, that's where 50 Shades of Grey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey#:~:text=The%20Fifty%20Shades%20trilogy%20was,pen%20name%20%22Snowqueen%20Icedragon%22.) came from.
But it's okay to use Hercules, Tarzan, Conan, Sherlock, Dracula, etc. because they're already beyond the arbitrary cutoff point for copyright terms? What kind of sense does that make?
The original intent of copyright was to incentivize the creation of new works by protecting creators from piracy. This was only intended for a limited period of time, after which the work would enter public domain. The limited time was intended to incentivize the creation of further new works because creators couldn't coast on their first work and then give up.
Now copyright is so long that it is hurting the arts. Most work doesn't become popular or make any profit, so copyrighting serves no other purpose than to ensure it is lost to obscurity. Big corporations aren't interested in taking anything from the public domain that isn't already hugely popular, and even then public domain material is generally considered poison because anyone can use it. That's why you don't see big singular franchises built around those public domain figures I mentioned. Popular copyrighted works are doomed to be driven into the ground by the creator's family or apathetic corpos that don't get what made it great. Copyright terms longer than a couple decades is a lose-lose scenario for the arts.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMfor instance BtAS, now you can't find anything that gets even close to that.
Even that took a nose dive in quality in its final season.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 26, 2024, 09:19:01 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 03:09:42 AMNo one is stopping you from telling your friends a story about Superman. If you want to publish it and make money off it, you have to deal with copyright law. Shit, that's where 50 Shades of Grey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey#:~:text=The%20Fifty%20Shades%20trilogy%20was,pen%20name%20%22Snowqueen%20Icedragon%22.) came from.
But it's okay to use Hercules, Tarzan, Conan, Sherlock, Dracula, etc. because they're already beyond the arbitrary cutoff point for copyright terms? What kind of sense does that make?
Because certain IP were created before modern copyright law. The authors are dead and there's no one to claim the copyright in the modern structure. Makes perfect sense.
QuoteThe original intent of copyright was to incentivize the creation of new works by protecting creators from piracy. This was only intended for a limited period of time, after which the work would enter public domain. The limited time was intended to incentivize the creation of further new works because creators couldn't coast on their first work and then give up.
Now copyright is so long that it is hurting the arts. Most work doesn't become popular or make any profit,
That's an issue with the work in question. For every Matrix theres a Jupiter Ascendant. For every Star Wars theres a Howard the Duck. Relaxing copyright law won't make a bad film popular. Letting someone make a terrible Star Wars film instead of Battle Beyond the Stars* won't improve the arts.
*Arguably an enjoyable bad film.
Quoteso copyrighting serves no other purpose than to ensure it is lost to obscurity. Big corporations aren't interested in taking anything from the public domain that isn't already hugely popular, and even then public domain material is generally considered poison because anyone can use it. That's why you don't see big singular franchises built around those public domain figures I mentioned. Popular copyrighted works are doomed to be driven into the ground by the creator's family or apathetic corpos that don't get what made it great. Copyright terms longer than a couple decades is a lose-lose scenario for the arts.
There have been many sucessful films made from public domain IP. Legend of Tarzan and Bram Stoker's Dracula, off the top of my head. Conan AFAICT is still under copyright.
You can't replace talent with a popular IP. It doesn't matter if it's Disney or indie film guy pissing on Star Wars. It's still covered with piss. And indie film guy has the option to make his own space opera flick and do it better.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 05:17:04 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 26, 2024, 09:19:01 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 03:09:42 AMNo one is stopping you from telling your friends a story about Superman. If you want to publish it and make money off it, you have to deal with copyright law. Shit, that's where 50 Shades of Grey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey#:~:text=The%20Fifty%20Shades%20trilogy%20was,pen%20name%20%22Snowqueen%20Icedragon%22.) came from.
But it's okay to use Hercules, Tarzan, Conan, Sherlock, Dracula, etc. because they're already beyond the arbitrary cutoff point for copyright terms? What kind of sense does that make?
Because certain IP were created before modern copyright law. The authors are dead and there's no one to claim the copyright in the modern structure. Makes perfect sense.
QuoteThe original intent of copyright was to incentivize the creation of new works by protecting creators from piracy. This was only intended for a limited period of time, after which the work would enter public domain. The limited time was intended to incentivize the creation of further new works because creators couldn't coast on their first work and then give up.
Now copyright is so long that it is hurting the arts. Most work doesn't become popular or make any profit,
That's an issue with the work in question. For every Matrix theres a Jupiter Ascendant. For every Star Wars theres a Howard the Duck. Relaxing copyright law won't make a bad film popular. Letting someone make a terrible Star Wars film instead of Battle Beyond the Stars* won't improve the arts.
*Arguably an enjoyable bad film.
Quoteso copyrighting serves no other purpose than to ensure it is lost to obscurity. Big corporations aren't interested in taking anything from the public domain that isn't already hugely popular, and even then public domain material is generally considered poison because anyone can use it. That's why you don't see big singular franchises built around those public domain figures I mentioned. Popular copyrighted works are doomed to be driven into the ground by the creator's family or apathetic corpos that don't get what made it great. Copyright terms longer than a couple decades is a lose-lose scenario for the arts.
There have been many sucessful films made from public domain IP. Legend of Tarzan and Bram Stoker's Dracula, off the top of my head. Conan AFAICT is still under copyright.
You can't replace talent with a popular IP. It doesn't matter if it's Disney or indie film guy pissing on Star Wars. It's still covered with piss. And indie film guy has the option to make his own space opera flick and do it better.
Nope, not unless the American Project Guttenberg is breaking the law, ALL of REH's works published during his lifetime ARE in the public domain.
REH in Project Guttenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=robert+e+howard&submit_search=Go%21)
BUT, Conan, Like Tarzan, is under Trademark, so you can't use the name in the cover or the publicity without paying to the estate.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 26, 2024, 05:26:06 PMNope, not unless the American Project Guttenberg is breaking the law, ALL of REH's works published during his lifetime ARE in the public domain.
REH in Project Guttenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=robert+e+howard&submit_search=Go%21)
BUT, Conan, Like Tarzan, is under Trademark, so you can't use the name in the cover or the publicity without paying to the estate.
It's complicated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian#Copyright_and_trademark_dispute) The first Conan stories were published in Weird Tales starting in 1932, and Howard died in 1936. If they are considered a work-for-hire, then by U.S. copyright law, they are under copyright for 95 years - and only start being released in 1927. However, some stories arguably lapsed into the public domain because they were not renewed, and some stories arguably were not works-for-hire, and thus fell into public domain 70 years after Howard's death (i.e. 2006).
In practice, the Howard estate lawyers are willing to go after many people, but not Project Gutenberg.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 05:17:04 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 26, 2024, 09:19:01 AMThe original intent of copyright was to incentivize the creation of new works by protecting creators from piracy. This was only intended for a limited period of time, after which the work would enter public domain. The limited time was intended to incentivize the creation of further new works because creators couldn't coast on their first work and then give up.
Now copyright is so long that it is hurting the arts. Most work doesn't become popular or make any profit,
That's an issue with the work in question. For every Matrix theres a Jupiter Ascendant. For every Star Wars theres a Howard the Duck. Relaxing copyright law won't make a bad film popular. Letting someone make a terrible Star Wars film instead of Battle Beyond the Stars* won't improve the arts.
*Arguably an enjoyable bad film.
You're implying that continually extending copyright the way that Disney wants will produce more original material, but I think it's the exact opposite. Extending copyright gives Disney and other IP-owning corporations
more incentive to keep pushing out shitty sequels, prequels, and reboots.
If we allow copyright to expire into the public domain in a reasonable time frame, then those 50+ year old franchises will have decreased value. That means corporations will have
less incentive to do an umpteenth reboot. That's because they don't own exclusive rights to the ancient franchise, whereas if they can create a new franchise, they'll have exclusive rights and thus more profit.
As GeekyBugle noted, we don't actually see a boom in material when something goes into public domain. e.g. There was no boom in Tarzan material as it went public domain. Public domain frees up fans to create fan works, but mostly it settles into a steady-state of occasional new stuff for that franchise.
Quote from: jhkim on July 26, 2024, 08:50:19 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on July 26, 2024, 05:26:06 PMNope, not unless the American Project Guttenberg is breaking the law, ALL of REH's works published during his lifetime ARE in the public domain.
REH in Project Guttenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=robert+e+howard&submit_search=Go%21)
BUT, Conan, Like Tarzan, is under Trademark, so you can't use the name in the cover or the publicity without paying to the estate.
It's complicated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian#Copyright_and_trademark_dispute) The first Conan stories were published in Weird Tales starting in 1932, and Howard died in 1936. If they are considered a work-for-hire, then by U.S. copyright law, they are under copyright for 95 years - and only start being released in 1927. However, some stories arguably lapsed into the public domain because they were not renewed, and some stories arguably were not works-for-hire, and thus fell into public domain 70 years after Howard's death (i.e. 2006).
In practice, the Howard estate lawyers are willing to go after many people, but not Project Gutenberg.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 05:17:04 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 26, 2024, 09:19:01 AMThe original intent of copyright was to incentivize the creation of new works by protecting creators from piracy. This was only intended for a limited period of time, after which the work would enter public domain. The limited time was intended to incentivize the creation of further new works because creators couldn't coast on their first work and then give up.
Now copyright is so long that it is hurting the arts. Most work doesn't become popular or make any profit,
That's an issue with the work in question. For every Matrix theres a Jupiter Ascendant. For every Star Wars theres a Howard the Duck. Relaxing copyright law won't make a bad film popular. Letting someone make a terrible Star Wars film instead of Battle Beyond the Stars* won't improve the arts.
*Arguably an enjoyable bad film.
You're implying that continually extending copyright the way that Disney wants will produce more original material, but I think it's the exact opposite. Extending copyright gives Disney and other IP-owning corporations more incentive to keep pushing out shitty sequels, prequels, and reboots.
If we allow copyright to expire into the public domain in a reasonable time frame, then those 50+ year old franchises will have decreased value. That means corporations will have less incentive to do an umpteenth reboot. That's because they don't own exclusive rights to the ancient franchise, whereas if they can create a new franchise, they'll have exclusive rights and thus more profit.
As GeekyBugle noted, we don't actually see a boom in material when something goes into public domain. e.g. There was no boom in Tarzan material as it went public domain. Public domain frees up fans to create fan works, but mostly it settles into a steady-state of occasional new stuff for that franchise.
No, it's NOT complicated, es your own source proves it:
QuoteSince Robert E. Howard's Conan stories were published at a time when the date of publication was the marker (1932–1963), however, and any new owners failed to renew them to maintain the copyrights,[53] the exact copyright status of all of Howard's 'Conan' works is in question.[54] The majority of Howard's Conan fiction exist in at least two versions, subject to different copyright standards, namely 1) the original Weird Tales publications before or shortly after Howard's death, which are generally understood to be public domain and 2) restored versions based upon manuscripts which were unpublished during Howard's lifetime.[55]
BUT, unless you have the money to go to war with them then it's safer to stay away from the IP. Lawfare doesn't change the law, it just means it requires someone with deeper pockets than the estate to challenge them in court.
Quote from: jhkim on July 26, 2024, 08:50:19 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on July 26, 2024, 05:26:06 PMNope, not unless the American Project Guttenberg is breaking the law, ALL of REH's works published during his lifetime ARE in the public domain.
REH in Project Guttenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=robert+e+howard&submit_search=Go%21)
BUT, Conan, Like Tarzan, is under Trademark, so you can't use the name in the cover or the publicity without paying to the estate.
It's complicated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian#Copyright_and_trademark_dispute) The first Conan stories were published in Weird Tales starting in 1932, and Howard died in 1936. If they are considered a work-for-hire, then by U.S. copyright law, they are under copyright for 95 years - and only start being released in 1927. However, some stories arguably lapsed into the public domain because they were not renewed, and some stories arguably were not works-for-hire, and thus fell into public domain 70 years after Howard's death (i.e. 2006).
In practice, the Howard estate lawyers are willing to go after many people, but not Project Gutenberg.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 05:17:04 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 26, 2024, 09:19:01 AMThe original intent of copyright was to incentivize the creation of new works by protecting creators from piracy. This was only intended for a limited period of time, after which the work would enter public domain. The limited time was intended to incentivize the creation of further new works because creators couldn't coast on their first work and then give up.
Now copyright is so long that it is hurting the arts. Most work doesn't become popular or make any profit,
That's an issue with the work in question. For every Matrix theres a Jupiter Ascendant. For every Star Wars theres a Howard the Duck. Relaxing copyright law won't make a bad film popular. Letting someone make a terrible Star Wars film instead of Battle Beyond the Stars* won't improve the arts.
*Arguably an enjoyable bad film.
You're implying that continually extending copyright the way that Disney wants will produce more original material,
No, I'm not. My statement was that a bad film made from an existing IP or a new IP is still a bad film.
Quotebut I think it's the exact opposite. Extending copyright gives Disney and other IP-owning corporations more incentive to keep pushing out shitty sequels, prequels, and reboots.
If we allow copyright to expire into the public domain in a reasonable time frame, then those 50+ year old franchises will have decreased value. That means corporations will have less incentive to do an umpteenth reboot. That's because they don't own exclusive rights to the ancient franchise, whereas if they can create a new franchise, they'll have exclusive rights and thus more profit.
Unless their new franchise tanks and they take a loss.
To bring it back to the original post. The problem isn't copyright. The problem is a lot of "creatives" making modern films and TV are uncreative dolts who are mooching off of IP popularity. The solution is to fire all the dolts and get some real talent into the studio.
Changing the people in the writing room isn't going to solve the problems caused by copyright, like abandonware. Abandonware is a national security threat because it's not legal to maintain the software yourself. So there's been theft of classified documents, ransomware attacks on hospitals...
Also, you act like Hollywood never wrecked franchises before 2016. They've been wrecking franchises as long as there have been franchises. They've been screwing over creators ever since contracts have existed. Incompetence and greed are not limited to people of particular political leanings or to particular periods of time.
But in my experience, the lefties are definitely the most hypocritical about it. Artists are largely left leaning for reasons (i.e. they're socialists and communists, favor abolishing private ownership), but they're in favor of perpetual copyright because they have irrational sentimental attachment to their art and don't want anyone else playing with their toybox. But when Anne Rice's vampire books are butchered by AMC, for example, these same lefties cheer about it. They mock Anne, mock her gay son (he's been quiet about the show because AMC screwed him over), and mock purist fans for valuing fidelity despite her and her work being a LGBT+ icon for decades.
Reducing copyright terms is a net good for society.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMReducing copyright terms is a net good for society.
You've said this many times about several properties. I am curious, is your interest in this matter stemming from a producer side or an end-user/consumer side?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMChanging the people in the writing room isn't going to solve the problems caused by copyright, like abandonware. Abandonware is a national security threat because it's not legal to maintain the software yourself. So there's been theft of classified documents, ransomware attacks on hospitals...
Abandonware in hospitals and similar...
You're aware that Linux exists right? That opensource software already exists for hospitals and that creating new software for linux is possible right?
Information theft isn't because of abandonware, it's because dolts are in charge, the same for ransomware.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMAlso, you act like Hollywood never wrecked franchises before 2016. They've been wrecking franchises as long as there have been franchises. They've been screwing over creators ever since contracts have existed. Incompetence and greed are not limited to people of particular political leanings or to particular periods of time.
I remember Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, yes, but then the studio droped the IP and made no new movies for it for a long while, plus those were bad movies, not propaganda. Now they don't drop the IP or the p`ropaganda BECAUSE they are ideologically possessed and are being backed up by ideologically possessed Blackrock and similars with money from other people that might not agree with the propaganda.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMBut in my experience, the lefties are definitely the most hypocritical about it. Artists are largely left leaning for reasons (i.e. they're socialists and communists, favor abolishing private ownership), but they're in favor of perpetual copyright because they have irrational sentimental attachment to their art and don't want anyone else playing with their toybox. But when Anne Rice's vampire books are butchered by AMC, for example, these same lefties cheer about it. They mock Anne, mock her gay son (he's been quiet about the show because AMC screwed him over), and mock purist fans for valuing fidelity despite her and her work being a LGBT+ icon for decades.
But it's not "their "art" ", it's a corporation owned IP. The Corporation has been either blindsided (chasing an inexistent audience), bought by Blackrock's money injections or is ruled by ideologically possessed individuals.
It's not about "art" it's about pushing The Message! tm.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMReducing copyright terms is a net good for society.
Why is it that no fan made movie about public domain IPs makes it to theaters?
MONEY!
You need lots of it to make a movie, plus the talent. having passion for something doesn't mean you're going to make something good, as thousands of fan-fiction prove.
Let's say you get your wish and copyright is reduced or abolished...
What will happen then?
Trademark is still a thing, and it's what estates and corporations use and will continue to use to lawfare your fan product into oblivion.
Because not only you don't have the money to make a really good movie, you don't have deep enough pockets to fight them in court.
ERB's Tarzan, John Carter, Carson Napier are ALL in the public domain, together with all the works by REH published before his death, where are the GOOD fan made things about them?
Now, Lolbertarians insist that copyright shouldn't exist...
So, let's say they get their wish...
What will happen is that the next 50 Shades of Grey will never be published (which is a good thing IMHO if it was ONLY that one), because the moment the auther sends it's manuscript to a publisher she loses her rights, and because the moment she self-publish it and becomes popular some corporate asshole will use their money to out compete her.
Quote from: HappyDaze on July 27, 2024, 10:43:00 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMReducing copyright terms is a net good for society.
You've said this many times about several properties. I am curious, is your interest in this matter stemming from a producer side or an end-user/consumer side?
Personally, there are multiple obscure ttrpgs that I like which were either canceled by corpos or lost to limbo for whatever reason. If these were public domain, then they would be much easier to disseminate and write new supplements for. The original writers could even get involved if they wanted.
While trademark would still exist, it would be quite easy to create retroclones without needing to replace huge swathes of the existing material. Trademark is used for commercial likenesses, not world building or game rules.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMChanging the people in the writing room isn't going to solve the problems caused by copyright, like abandonware. Abandonware is a national security threat because it's not legal to maintain the software yourself. So there's been theft of classified documents, ransomware attacks on hospitals...
That's a different subject.
QuoteAlso, you act like Hollywood never wrecked franchises before 2016. They've been wrecking franchises as long as there have been franchises. They've been screwing over creators ever since contracts have existed. Incompetence and greed are not limited to people of particular political leanings or to particular periods of time.
And incompetence and greed are not limited to corporations.
Even so, if hollywood wrecks a franchise, I stop watching. I stopped watching new Star Trek altogether, and I pick and choose what new Star Wars media I watch, leaning towards skipping stuff that seems bad.
QuoteReducing copyright terms is a net good for society.
I remain unconvinced.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 12:36:36 PMLet's say you get your wish and copyright is reduced or abolished...
What will happen then?
Trademark is still a thing, and it's what estates and corporations use and will continue to use to lawfare your fan product into oblivion.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 12:36:36 PMNow, Lolbertarians insist that copyright shouldn't exist...
So, let's say they get their wish...
What will happen is that the next 50 Shades of Grey will never be published (which is a good thing IMHO if it was ONLY that one), because the moment the auther sends it's manuscript to a publisher she loses her rights, and because the moment she self-publish it and becomes popular some corporate asshole will use their money to out compete her.
Neither BoxCrayonTales nor I are against copyright. We're against copyright lasting for 90+ years.
You dispute the specifics of Conan, but under current U.S. law, a story that is published in 1932 that is a "work-for-hire" would not end copyright until 2027. Regardless of whether Conan specifically was a work-for-hire, I think it's ridiculous that any works published in 1932 should still be copyrighted.
You say that lawfare will still exist, but that doesn't mean that the law is meaningless. Regardless of what the laws are, corporations will try to engage in lawfare -- but that doesn't mean that we should bow down to corporations and pass whatever laws they want. And let's be clear, corporations aren't trying to reduce copyright terms so that they can steal from authors. Corporations
love extended copyright, and are constantly lobbying to try to extend copyright protections.
Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2024, 06:57:54 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 12:36:36 PMLet's say you get your wish and copyright is reduced or abolished...
What will happen then?
Trademark is still a thing, and it's what estates and corporations use and will continue to use to lawfare your fan product into oblivion.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 12:36:36 PMNow, Lolbertarians insist that copyright shouldn't exist...
So, let's say they get their wish...
What will happen is that the next 50 Shades of Grey will never be published (which is a good thing IMHO if it was ONLY that one), because the moment the auther sends it's manuscript to a publisher she loses her rights, and because the moment she self-publish it and becomes popular some corporate asshole will use their money to out compete her.
Neither BoxCrayonTales nor I are against copyright. We're against copyright lasting for 90+ years.
You dispute the specifics of Conan, but under current U.S. law, a story that is published in 1932 that is a "work-for-hire" would not end copyright until 2027. Regardless of whether Conan specifically was a work-for-hire, I think it's ridiculous that any works published in 1932 should still be copyrighted.
You say that lawfare will still exist, but that doesn't mean that the law is meaningless. Regardless of what the laws are, corporations will try to engage in lawfare -- but that doesn't mean that we should bow down to corporations and pass whatever laws they want. And let's be clear, corporations aren't trying to reduce copyright terms so that they can steal from authors. Corporations love extended copyright, and are constantly lobbying to try to extend copyright protections.
"UNDER CURRENT US LAW"
Relevant because that wasn't the law back then, the copyright wasn't renewed, if the estate could they would C&D the American Project Guttenberg of sharing those works for free, but they don't.
You think it's because they are soooo generous?
Nope, it's because they can't and don't need to because they have trademarked the names, so you can't use them on the cover, publicity, title, etc.
So your project is dead in the water even if they don't sue you, because nobody will buy something they don't know, your product is dead.
I'm not going to go into the "let's reform the copyright law" argument because the thread isn't for that, but my position is that for human beings it should be eternal, something you can inherit to your descendants in perpetuity, because lolbertarians and commies hate that position and they pissed me off enough to come to that conclusion.
For corporations it shouldn't last that long, maybe 25 years or whatever the term a patent has, this is IMHO time enough for the corporation to profit from their IP, but this is useless wankery unless you also reform trademark law regarding cultural IPs.
Which means thay if I create the next big thing and a corporation wants to buy it from me they can but they'll have ONLY 20-25 years to profit from it.
But if I don't sell it then I and my descendants can profit from it forever. Without pleading the question show me why it should be different than if I buy a piece of land, a business, etc?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 09:22:55 PMBut if I don't sell it then I and my descendants can profit from it forever. Without pleading the question show me why it should be different than if I buy a piece of land, a business, etc?
Because it would cause a huge clusterfuck? Intellectual property isn't a limited resource, it can be infinitely copied easily. It's not ownership as such, it's a restriction on free speech. It makes no sense to treat it the same way as physical limited property. Can you imagine how much of a clusterfuck we'd have now if mythology was copyrighted?
It also doesn't fix the problem with your idiot descendants fucking your work over, as we've seen with Lord of the Rings and Dune. The families of the authors own it and they're driving it into the ground. Rings of Power, the Dune sequels, it's all garbage. Your proposal would make things infinitely worse.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 11:52:01 AMQuote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 09:22:55 PMBut if I don't sell it then I and my descendants can profit from it forever. Without pleading the question show me why it should be different than if I buy a piece of land, a business, etc?
Because it would cause a huge clusterfuck? Intellectual property isn't a limited resource, it can be infinitely copied easily. It's not ownership as such, it's a restriction on free speech. It makes no sense to treat it the same way as physical limited property. Can you imagine how much of a clusterfuck we'd have now if mythology was copyrighted?
It also doesn't fix the problem with your idiot descendants fucking your work over, as we've seen with Lord of the Rings and Dune. The families of the authors own it and they're driving it into the ground. Rings of Power, the Dune sequels, it's all garbage. Your proposal would make things infinitely worse.
Mythology is mythology (in part) BECAUSE we don't KNOW who wrote it, else it would be just a story.
Why is it a crime to perfectly imitate the style of centuries ago dead artists? The artist is long dead.
You confuse the idea with the execution:
Let's make a chair is an idea, the actual chair is the execution of said idea.
Let's write a novel about XYZ in ZYX genre is the idea, the actual novel is the execution of said idea, the way the author organized the words, the words he choose, those are all part of the execution of the idea.
Nothing is stopping you from writing a different novel about XYZ in ZYX genre, the same idea, different execution ergo different product.
My heirs have the God given right to do with their inheritance whatever the fuck they want, it's now theirs.
Let's say an architect builds himself a house in a "new" architectural style, then said architect becomes famous, decades or centuries after he dies his work is considered Art.
He left the original house to his son, should the government have the right to strip from the architect's heirs of the right to do whatever they wanted with said house? Even to demolish it?
It's Art, why is it different from a novel?
Let's say the heirs of a now famous writer find an unpublished novel... Are they obligated to publish it? What if they decide to never do so? What if they decide (for whatever reason) to burn it?
Are they committing a crime against who?
I might lament the burning of the house/novel/whatever but do I have the right to prevent them from doing so?
You constantly lament that geeks have a very strong emotional attachment to IPs, yet you seem to have an emotional attachment equal or bigger, you seem to think you have the right to said IP.
To the detriment of the corporations that own those IPs, many geeks have lost all emotional connection to them, with each new product they vomit those numbers grow.
Instead of demanding they give away said IPs we need to create new ones. Those of us who can't create them should help promote them.
Disney hasn't ruined MY copies of the Star Wars movies, or the EU, or my comics. It's theirs to do as they please, on the other hand my money is mine to do as I please, so just as I don't have a right to the IP they don't have a right to my money.
I might still criticize or point and laugh at the new grey goo they vomit but there's exactly ZERO emotional attachment.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 12:38:08 PMInstead of demanding they give away said IPs we need to create new ones. Those of us who can't create them should help promote them.
We can do both. It's not an either/or scenario. If a franchise has been around for decades and thoroughly driven into the ground, then I'm not interested. But it's a lot easier to create new IPs if we have past material to drawn from. Ideas aren't created in a vacuum. Every creative is inspired by the works that they've read/watched.
Also, most people are shallow and refuse to commit to new IPs if it doesn't contain recognizable material or isn't sufficiently old. That's why fanfiction is so common, possibly even more common than original fiction. A lot of people want to create but aren't creative enough to make new things, refuse to make new things, or cynically recycle recognizable IPs because they know nobody will read their original work.
I can understand that viewpoint because I've done the same thing. Even when I write fanfiction for really old IPs that aren't relevant to most people, I still get more engagement than if I write original fiction. Even if I just name drop Miskatonic University in a story that otherwise isn't a mythos story but just as an easter egg reference, I get way more views than if I don't. People are just shallow like that. The original fiction that gets the most views is, unsurprisingly, erotic fiction. The more fetishistic, like using catgirls or whatever, the more views you get.
Creating and maintaining franchises is hard. Getting successful is a matter of luck and craftsmanship. Mostly, I don't even want to create genuinely new stuff. Most of my ideas are for rescuing ideas from other now dead franchises, ones that were canceled before they got driven into the ground like the ones that survived. Old rpgs, old video games, old books... why go to the effort of sanitizing my work to avoiding infringing on the copyright of this abandonware when all I really want to do is use that abandonware? There's only so many ideas and I'm just not in the mood to create wholly original franchises most of the time. The most original stuff I've ever come up with are genre pastiches, like urban fantasy.
I think franchises like Star Wars and Marvel can just go die in a fire. It's obscure franchises like the old TSR rpgs or European RTS games like Earth 21xx or Armies of Exigo that I think deserve a second chance. Copyright law creates a huge problem with survivorship bias because the reasons why any given work might not get a second print run are not easily boiled down to "it just wasn't good."
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:20:24 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 12:38:08 PMInstead of demanding they give away said IPs we need to create new ones. Those of us who can't create them should help promote them.
We can do both. It's not an either/or scenario. If a franchise has been around for decades and thoroughly driven into the ground, then I'm not interested. But it's a lot easier to create new IPs if we have past material to drawn from. Ideas aren't created in a vacuum. Every creative is inspired by the works that they've read/watched.
Also, most people are shallow and refuse to commit to new IPs if it doesn't contain recognizable material or isn't sufficiently old. That's why fanfiction is so common, possibly even more common than original fiction. A lot of people want to create but aren't creative enough to make new things, refuse to make new things, or cynically recycle recognizable IPs because they know nobody will read their original work.
I can understand that viewpoint because I've done the same thing. Even when I write fanfiction for really old IPs that aren't relevant to most people, I still get more engagement than if I write original fiction. Even if I just name drop Miskatonic University in a story that otherwise isn't a mythos story but just as an easter egg reference, I get way more views than if I don't. People are just shallow like that. The original fiction that gets the most views is, unsurprisingly, erotic fiction. The more fetishistic, like using catgirls or whatever, the more views you get.
Creating and maintaining franchises is hard. Getting successful is a matter of luck and craftsmanship. Mostly, I don't even want to create genuinely new stuff. Most of my ideas are for rescuing ideas from other now dead franchises, ones that were canceled before they got driven into the ground like the ones that survived. Old rpgs, old video games, old books... why go to the effort of sanitizing my work to avoiding infringing on the copyright of this abandonware when all I really want to do is use that abandonware? There's only so many ideas and I'm just not in the mood to create wholly original franchises most of the time. The most original stuff I've ever come up with are genre pastiches, like urban fantasy.
I think franchises like Star Wars and Marvel can just go die in a fire. It's obscure franchises like the old TSR rpgs or European RTS games like Earth 21xx or Armies of Exigo that I think deserve a second chance. Copyright law creates a huge problem with survivorship bias because the reasons why any given work might not get a second print run are not easily boiled down to "it just wasn't good."
Which isn't creating new IPs, it's using already existing ones.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 01:27:17 PMWhich isn't creating new IPs, it's using already existing ones.
There's only so many ideas to go around and it's human nature to recycle ideas when telling new stories. We don't tell stories in a vacuum, we can't. Can you think of a truly original IP that doesn't draw inspiration from previous stories? Can you think of a replacement for Star Wars that doesn't draw upon the extensive history of scifi? That can't be readily compared to the many scifi stories that already exist?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:34:31 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 01:27:17 PMWhich isn't creating new IPs, it's using already existing ones.
There's only so many ideas to go around and it's human nature to recycle ideas when telling new stories. We don't tell stories in a vacuum, we can't. Can you think of a truly original IP that doesn't draw inspiration from previous stories? Can you think of a replacement for Star Wars that doesn't draw upon the extensive history of scifi? That can't be readily compared to the many scifi stories that already exist?
Again, you're conflating the idea with the execution of the idea:
Compare ERB's Barsoom series with his Venus series with The Planet of Peril series by Otis Adelbert Kline with Almuric by REH and countless other novels in the Sword & Planet genre.
Same idea, different execution.
What's stopping me from developing and publishing an RPG in that genre? NOTHING, as a matter of fact I'm doing so. What's stopping me from writing a novel based on my setting? The fact that I'm great at idea generation but shit at writing novels, I've tried.
It's more work than taking an existing setting and using it? You bet! It's also more rewarding.
IIRC several people in this forum have complained that we don't need another D&D clone, well people are developing their own settings and monsters and systems to publish those.
IIRC 50 shades started as fan fiction of one vampire IP or another, the author then took the time to expunge the fan fiction from it and made bank.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 01:53:46 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:34:31 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 01:27:17 PMWhich isn't creating new IPs, it's using already existing ones.
There's only so many ideas to go around and it's human nature to recycle ideas when telling new stories. We don't tell stories in a vacuum, we can't. Can you think of a truly original IP that doesn't draw inspiration from previous stories? Can you think of a replacement for Star Wars that doesn't draw upon the extensive history of scifi? That can't be readily compared to the many scifi stories that already exist?
Again, you're conflating the idea with the execution of the idea:
Compare ERB's Barsoom series with his Venus series with The Planet of Peril series by Otis Adelbert Kline with Almuric by REH and countless other novels in the Sword & Planet genre.
Same idea, different execution.
What's stopping me from developing and publishing an RPG in that genre? NOTHING, as a matter of fact I'm doing so. What's stopping me from writing a novel based on my setting? The fact that I'm great at idea generation but shit at writing novels, I've tried.
It's more work than taking an existing setting and using it? You bet! It's also more rewarding.
IIRC several people in this forum have complained that we don't need another D&D clone, well people are developing their own settings and monsters and systems to publish those.
IIRC 50 shades started as fan fiction of one vampire IP or another, the author then took the time to expunge the fan fiction from it and made bank.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:34:31 PMBecause it would cause a huge clusterfuck? Intellectual property isn't a limited resource, it can be infinitely copied easily. It's not ownership as such, it's a restriction on free speech. It makes no sense to treat it the same way as physical limited property. Can you imagine how much of a clusterfuck we'd have now if mythology was copyrighted?
This is a worst-case problem that is easily solved. Simply require the copyright holder to continuously renew the copyright in perpetuity as long as they pay an fee to maintain it. Say $1,000 every 5 years after 25 years. For massive corporate franchises, this fee will be trivial. For less significant works, the owner will gain no value from renewing the copyright and the work will become public domain.
This way there is no arbitrary deadline which causes corporations to go through various legal tricks to protect their IP. They can pay to keep the ones they want and the public gets to use whatever is leftover.
Or, as has been pointed out, the public can just create new IP which is what best for culture anyway.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:34:31 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 01:27:17 PMWhich isn't creating new IPs, it's using already existing ones.
There's only so many ideas to go around and it's human nature to recycle ideas when telling new stories. We don't tell stories in a vacuum, we can't. Can you think of a truly original IP that doesn't draw inspiration from previous stories? Can you think of a replacement for Star Wars that doesn't draw upon the extensive history of scifi? That can't be readily compared to the many scifi stories that already exist?
As I pointed out, George Lucas faced the same issue when he tried to get the rights to make a Flash Gordon movie.
I can think of numerous sci fi IPs that were created because Star Wars was successful, but are distinct enough to not infringe on the IP. Buck Rogers (the one with Gil Gerard) and the original Battlestar Galactica, and Battle Beyond the Stars off the top of my head.
We also have the mockbuster phenomenon where cheap ass film companies makes near-clones of existing popular movies in an attempt to cash in on the popularity.
So this is a non-issue. Copyright law doesn't stop you from making the next Star Wars. Or Planet Dune. Or Transmorphers. Whether your creation is any good, whether you have the drive and talent to get into movie production and actually do it is up to you.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 29, 2024, 02:51:06 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:34:31 PMBecause it would cause a huge clusterfuck? Intellectual property isn't a limited resource, it can be infinitely copied easily. It's not ownership as such, it's a restriction on free speech. It makes no sense to treat it the same way as physical limited property. Can you imagine how much of a clusterfuck we'd have now if mythology was copyrighted?
This is a worst-case problem that is easily solved. Simply require the copyright holder to continuously renew the copyright in perpetuity as long as they pay an fee to maintain it. Say $1,000 every 5 years after 25 years. For massive corporate franchises, this fee will be trivial. For less significant works, the owner will gain no value from renewing the copyright and the work will become public domain.
This way there is no arbitrary deadline which causes corporations to go through various legal tricks to protect their IP. They can pay to keep the ones they want and the public gets to use whatever is leftover.
Or, as has been pointed out, the public can just create new IP which is what best for culture anyway.
Private property emanates from the right to life, to own yourself. Why would anyone agree that the government has any right to extort money (at perpetuity none the less) so others don't infringe on my rights to own myself?
QuotePrivate property emanates from the right to life, to own yourself. Why would anyone agree that the government has any right to extort money (at perpetuity none the less) so others don't infringe on my rights to own myself?
Because human rights does not exist objectively, but as legal constructs made by United Nations, and it's due to organisation maintaining legal constructs they are worth anything.
Quote from: Wrath of God on July 30, 2024, 07:10:57 AMQuotePrivate property emanates from the right to life, to own yourself. Why would anyone agree that the government has any right to extort money (at perpetuity none the less) so others don't infringe on my rights to own myself?
Because human rights does not exist objectively, but as legal constructs made by United Nations, and it's due to organisation maintaining legal constructs they are worth anything.
That could be the most vile thing I've read in a long time. If you actually believe that, you are, at best, dangerously amoral...
I'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
I'm bowing out. I've made my argument against long and perpetual copyright. If you don't find it convincing, then I'm not gonna keep trying.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 30, 2024, 09:43:49 AMI'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
I'm bowing out. I've made my argument against long and perpetual copyright. If you don't find it convincing, then I'm not gonna keep trying.
Stallman is a fanatic, seriously he's like the Taliban except he's not violent, but he's a fundamentalist of what HE believes to be true.
Let me demolish (again) his argument:
He claims there's no inherent right to the fruits of your labor as long as said labor is intellectual (be it artistic or otherwise).
This is a logical fallacy called special pleading, HE (and many others) is making an artificial distinction between different endeavors: Building a house/Creating and intellectual product
But, there's no actual difference, both require money, effort, time and talent/knowledge to achieve.
He, like all the people that bought into this idea, conflates the idea with the execution of the idea, but only for intellectual efforts.
I think he's wrong, and have provided my arguments and a sound logic to support them, I always get the same back:
"Muh Greater Good!"
OR
"Nuh Hu!"
Or in the case of Wrath of God the most disturbing thought that the right to life doesn't exist, that in a world without the ONU (ignoring the formulation predates it by a couple centuries at least) we would be not only able but morally justified to murder, enslave others without a second thought and without ANYBODY having a way to claim that what we did is wrong.
No, Enslaving, Murdering, Stealing, etc ARE wrong with and without the ONU, which is why TWO of those are sins since at least 4,000 years, and the first was (FINALLY) recognized as a morally abhorrent thing a few centuries back.
I'm shocked he said it aloud, not surprised he thinks so, he's an European, in that continent the ONLY nation IKO that doesn't think like that is the UK (It's people not it's government because of course) except for the commie scum in the Islands.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 30, 2024, 09:43:49 AMI'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
I'm bowing out. I've made my argument against long and perpetual copyright. If you don't find it convincing, then I'm not gonna keep trying.
I feel we've gone as far as we can and are starting to repeat ourselves on that tangent.
QuoteThat could be the most vile thing I've read in a long time. If you actually believe that, you are, at best, dangerously amoral...
Oh, no I am not amoral, I just reject modern concept of human rights made by UN as any source of morality. It's political man-made construct, that's it.
QuoteOr in the case of Wrath of God the most disturbing thought that the right to life doesn't exist, that in a world without the ONU (ignoring the formulation predates it by a couple centuries at least) we would be not only able but morally justified to murder, enslave others without a second thought and without ANYBODY having a way to claim that what we did is wrong.
Ban on murder is not the same as right to live, and human rights based morality is distinct from one based on certain moral bans.
QuoteNo, Enslaving, Murdering, Stealing, etc ARE wrong with and without the ONU, which is why TWO of those are sins since at least 4,000 years, and the first was (FINALLY) recognized as a morally abhorrent thing a few centuries back.
Murdering and Stealing yes. Enslaving not so much - as Old Testament made distinct rules allowing slavery and defining it's limits - but very much allowing it, and New Testament is generally silent about matter, alas Saint Paul order slaves to obey masters within limits of God law (ergo not committing sins on masters behalf). Do with it what you want.
QuoteI'm shocked he said it aloud, not surprised he thinks so, he's an European, in that continent the ONLY nation IKO that doesn't think like that is the UK (It's people not it's government because of course) except for the commie scum in the Islands.
Glad to admit you know as little of Europe as of Bible :P
Quote from: Wrath of God on August 04, 2024, 06:21:25 PMQuoteThat could be the most vile thing I've read in a long time. If you actually believe that, you are, at best, dangerously amoral...
Oh, no I am not amoral, I just reject modern concept of human rights made by UN as any source of morality. It's political man-made construct, that's it.
QuoteOr in the case of Wrath of God the most disturbing thought that the right to life doesn't exist, that in a world without the ONU (ignoring the formulation predates it by a couple centuries at least) we would be not only able but morally justified to murder, enslave others without a second thought and without ANYBODY having a way to claim that what we did is wrong.
Ban on murder is not the same as right to live, and human rights based morality is distinct from one based on certain moral bans.
QuoteNo, Enslaving, Murdering, Stealing, etc ARE wrong with and without the ONU, which is why TWO of those are sins since at least 4,000 years, and the first was (FINALLY) recognized as a morally abhorrent thing a few centuries back.
Murdering and Stealing yes. Enslaving not so much - as Old Testament made distinct rules allowing slavery and defining it's limits - but very much allowing it, and New Testament is generally silent about matter, alas Saint Paul order slaves to obey masters within limits of God law (ergo not committing sins on masters behalf). Do with it what you want.
QuoteI'm shocked he said it aloud, not surprised he thinks so, he's an European, in that continent the ONLY nation IKO that doesn't think like that is the UK (It's people not it's government because of course) except for the commie scum in the Islands.
Glad to admit you know as little of Europe as of Bible :P
Amoral, yes, that's what you are.
I don't need the ONU to assert those rights exist, as proven by them existing BEFORE the ONU.
You have it bass ackwards: We don't derive our morality from the ONU or the pre-existing rights you deny, we derive those rights you deny from our morality. But you, being an Amoral blob, wouldn't understand it.
So men aren't perfect ergo the Bible is wrong...
God created man in his image, from that we derive that all men are equal before God, and from that we derive that all men should be equal under the mortal's law.
Thou shall not murder, from that we derive that you have no right to unlawfully kill others, meaning those others don't belong to you, because there's no prohibition to kill YOUR livestock. Now, if you don't own others and those others don't own you... Who owns you?
I would leave that as an assignment for the pupil but I fear you lack the capacity to answer, so here it is: God owns your immortal soul, but in this world YOU own yourself.
Chew on that.
QuoteI don't need the ONU to assert those rights exist, as proven by them existing BEFORE the ONU.
No no one did it, aside of mere philosophical speculation of antiChristian deists.
QuoteYou have it bass ackwards: We don't derive our morality from the ONU or the pre-existing rights you deny, we derive those rights you deny from our morality. But you, being an Amoral blob, wouldn't understand it.
So men aren't perfect ergo the Bible is wrong...
Dude, are you deaf? Bible endorses certain forms of slavery. What it does not endorse is definitely American enlightened classical liberalism.
QuoteGod created man in his image, from that we derive that all men are equal before God, and from that we derive that all men should be equal under the mortal's law.
Which goes against basically all history of Christianity, but OK.
That's failed and nonsensical logic.
God clearly estabilished hierarchies among people, not equality.
QuoteThou shall not murder, from that we derive that you have no right to unlawfully kill others, meaning those others don't belong to you, because there's no prohibition to kill YOUR livestock. Now, if you don't own others and those others don't own you... Who owns you?
That is another nonsense.
Just alongside thou shall not murder, you have specific rules about slavery.
Which limits what ancient Israeli could do with slave, but still slave was his property. Because right of PROPERTY in Bible is not some absolute. And you wanna make it absolute just like right to live, which make another God decisions like waging aggresive war against Caanan nonsense in your dumb authistic exegesis.
There are no human rights - there are divine privileges limiting your actions.
That's why slave is property in Bible, but it's not cattle and you cannot butcher it - because your power over own property is not absolute.
And there are multiple numerous laws limiting use of own property even mundane one.
QuoteI would leave that as an assignment for the pupil but I fear you lack the capacity to answer, so here it is: God owns your immortal soul, but in this world YOU own yourself.
No I don't. God owns me here just as much as anywhere.
And if he put me into web of hierarchies to obey as Bible states in multiple times it's my duty to obey not to self-own myself.
Quote from: Wrath of God on August 05, 2024, 03:21:27 AMQuoteI don't need the ONU to assert those rights exist, as proven by them existing BEFORE the ONU.
No no one did it, aside of mere philosophical speculation of antiChristian deists.
QuoteYou have it bass ackwards: We don't derive our morality from the ONU or the pre-existing rights you deny, we derive those rights you deny from our morality. But you, being an Amoral blob, wouldn't understand it.
So men aren't perfect ergo the Bible is wrong...
Dude, are you deaf? Bible endorses certain forms of slavery. What it does not endorse is definitely American enlightened classical liberalism.
QuoteGod created man in his image, from that we derive that all men are equal before God, and from that we derive that all men should be equal under the mortal's law.
Which goes against basically all history of Christianity, but OK.
That's failed and nonsensical logic.
God clearly estabilished hierarchies among people, not equality.
QuoteThou shall not murder, from that we derive that you have no right to unlawfully kill others, meaning those others don't belong to you, because there's no prohibition to kill YOUR livestock. Now, if you don't own others and those others don't own you... Who owns you?
That is another nonsense.
Just alongside thou shall not murder, you have specific rules about slavery.
Which limits what ancient Israeli could do with slave, but still slave was his property. Because right of PROPERTY in Bible is not some absolute. And you wanna make it absolute just like right to live, which make another God decisions like waging aggresive war against Caanan nonsense in your dumb authistic exegesis.
There are no human rights - there are divine privileges limiting your actions.
That's why slave is property in Bible, but it's not cattle and you cannot butcher it - because your power over own property is not absolute.
And there are multiple numerous laws limiting use of own property even mundane one.
QuoteI would leave that as an assignment for the pupil but I fear you lack the capacity to answer, so here it is: God owns your immortal soul, but in this world YOU own yourself.
No I don't. God owns me here just as much as anywhere.
And if he put me into web of hierarchies to obey as Bible states in multiple times it's my duty to obey not to self-own myself.
So you follow each and everyone of the 613 commandments in the old testament right?
QuoteSo you follow each and everyone of the 613 commandments in the old testament right?
Nope, as per Church Fathers canons I accept that moral rules of OT are correct, but purity and legal laws can be changed in Christendom. But since moral rules must be well moral - that means every commandment of OT was inherently moral, because there is no contradiction in God, and any philosophical interpretation - like whole Enlightenment human rights heresy - that try to prove otherwise is false.
(With slavery it's even easier because Saint Paul calls for slave to obey, and not for abolition).
I wonder if George Lucas after failing to get Flash Gordon rights learned a lesson and ensured he kept total control of his IP.