Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;820314Shakespeare is awesome but T&C is legitimately terrible.

Ah--have to agree with this.

Quote from: S'mon;820209He was using satire.

Or rather sarcasm. But I DO stand corrected. Apologies, JA. I should've scrolled back a couple pages.

Quote from: estar;820263Nobody creates in a vacuum. Very few works are that original if any are. Each artist/author learns from the common pool, and then puts his or her own unique twist on it.

Sure. You're inspired by Conan so you make your own character called Grognar and write stories about him. And maybe you give him a wolf companion. And have him hunted by his father, who believes a prophecy that his son will slay him. Go nuts.

But if you have to make your barbarian named Conan, and he has to be something called a Cimmerian, and he has to be destined to wear the crown of Aquilonia? That's kinda weak.

Quote from: estar;820263The artist/author should be able to profit from their efforts by have some exclusive rights to their creation. However ethics and common sense demands that their work be returned to the common pool so others can benefit as they benefited.

You benefit by being inspired by other works and using that inspiration to make your own. Why the ethical requirement to make that exact thing available to anyone else?

You know why we have a bunch of cool superheroes to read comics about and watch on the big screen? Because guys like Jack Kirby made up a bunch of cool characters. From their imagination. But now we have re-boots of re-boots of re-boots Spider-Man, and the same character's story being told over and over and over and over again. How is that a benefit to society? Sounds creatively bankrupt to me.

Quote from: Haffrung;820536Sure. You're inspired by Conan so you make your own character called Grognar and write stories about him. And maybe you give him a wolf companion. And have him hunted by his father, who believes a prophecy that his son will slay him. Go nuts.

But if you have to make your barbarian named Conan, and he has to be something called a Cimmerian, and he has to be destined to wear the crown of Aquilonia? That's kinda weak.

Over the years I find that good is good and bad is bad regardless of inspiration or source. Enough time to realize that the source or inspiration of the author is not what matters but the quality of the writing. If reusing Conan and his mileau is what enabled an author to right a kick ass story than great. I don't consider it "weak" because the author found inspiration in Conan versus something original.

And lot of what "original" is in reality is something old with a new coast of paint. Where the novelty comes in is how author combines things in a new way. On one hand Harry Potter is little more than the traditional English Boarding School story combined with fantasy worldbuilding. But because J.K. Rowling is a good writer and because that combination inspired her the result is one of the best selling novel series of all time.

J.R.R Tolkien likewise draws deeply on the myths and foundations of Anglo-Saxon England but when combined with his love of making up languages, his desire to explain where those languages come from and inspired to come up with tales to entertain his children resulting in the hobbit and then the Lord of the Rings.

Quote from: Haffrung;820536You benefit by being inspired by other works and using that inspiration to make your own. Why the ethical requirement to make that exact thing available to anyone else?

The author is obligated to add back same to the wellspring from which he or she drew from. It not fair for J.K Rowling and her heirs to indefinitely benefit from the work of previous generation without returning something back directly.

There is no difference in reusing Conan in a work than Rowling reusing Irish faeries as house elves or Tolkein drawing on norse myth for dwarves even using specific names from Norse legends.

Quote from: Haffrung;820536You know why we have a bunch of cool superheroes to read comics about and watch on the big screen? Because guys like Jack Kirby made up a bunch of cool characters. From their imagination. But now we have re-boots of re-boots of re-boots Spider-Man, and the same character's story being told over and over and over and over again. How is that a benefit to society? Sounds creatively bankrupt to me.

You ignoring the fact that there are just as much original creation going on today as reusing older material.  There is nothing wrong with you not liking reboots. However you are in error in thinking that others who do enjoy reboots have inferior taste or as you put in creatively bankrupt.

It not a black or white issue. There are completely original never seen before works and there are works that are completely derivative like a remake. And there everything in between. Who knows where the next great work will come from? But my opinion that after a period of time, shorter than what we grant these days, a author or artist work should be made public domain for other to benefit from. Benefit in the manner new artist or author best see fit not what the long dead author decides what he ought to be.

Quote from: estar;820663The author is obligated to add back same to the wellspring from which he or she drew from. It not fair for J.K Rowling and her heirs to indefinitely benefit from the work of previous generation without returning something back directly.

There is no difference in reusing Conan in a work than Rowling reusing Irish faeries as house elves or Tolkein drawing on norse myth for dwarves even using specific names from Norse legends.

There's a world of difference between being inspired or influenced by something, and copying it direct.

J.K. Rowling was inspired by other works to create something different. And people have been inspired by Rowling to create a host of new books featuring child wizards and magic schools, and she clearly doesn't have a problem with that. But they can't use Harry Potter and Hogwarts because those are hers. People who like Harry Potter can do what Rowling did and use it as an inspiration for their own imaginary material.

Heck, much of the material inspired by Tolkien and Rowling is so derivative that it's little more than the same story with the serial numbers filed off. And even that's okay. But the only reason to use the exact names and settings that Tolkien and Rowling used is to leverage the name recognition for commercial gains. People do not have a right to do that, and it cannot be defended on the basis of creative freedom, when it demonstrates such a dearth of creativity.

Quote from: Haffrung;820688There's a world of difference between being inspired or influenced by something, and copying it direct.

I agree there is a difference but not the world of difference you make it out to be. And while Tolkien and Rowling work as a whole were unique and novel at the time of the release many elements of their work were directly copied from another work.

Quote from: Haffrung;820688Heck, much of the material inspired by Tolkien and Rowling is so derivative that it's little more than the same story with the serial numbers filed off. And even that's okay. But the only reason to use the exact names and settings that Tolkien and Rowling used is to leverage the name recognition for commercial gains. People do not have a right to do that, and it cannot be defended on the basis of creative freedom, when it demonstrates such a dearth of creativity.

My view is there no difference creatively in wanting to use goblins, giant birds, dragons, versus named characters like Gandalf, Harry Potter, and settings like Hogwarts or Middle Earth. It all gist for the creative mill and the result is either good or bad period. It not bad just because the author opted to use dragon rather than coming up with a new large flying monster that breath fire. It not bad because the author opted to use Gandalf. It bad because the author sucked at writing period. The same when the work is good.

A Christmas Carol is a good example, there is the original Dickens version but there been many variant and version over the years each good or bad on its own merits. Some are faithful adaptations of Dickens original story, other are not. Each need to be judged on its own merits as to how creative it is.

I would go further that to do a good job with other characters and settings one has to be even more creative or risk the resulting work as a pastiche or a retread of something else. For example I feel that Alan Moore did a nice job of adapting 19th century characters in his League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. By your standard his work is creatively bankrupt because he using other characters instead of his own Extraordinary Gentlemen. I applaud him for coming up with a fresh way of using those characters.

I seen enough good (and a lot of bad) fan fiction, alternate history stories, and adapations to say that a blanket assertion like the one you are making is bullshit.

The author should be able to profit from his work for a good period of time. My view is that 56 years, nearly half of century is about right. Afterwards the work is public domain free for anybody to use just as anybody is free to use Scrooge, Odysseus and everything else in the public domain.

Quote from: estar;820692The author should be able to profit from his work for a good period of time. My view is that 56 years, nearly half of century is about right. Afterwards the work is public domain free for anybody to use just as anybody is free to use Scrooge, Odysseus and everything else in the public domain.

I agree that about 50 years sounds right.

Quote from: Haffrung;820688There's a world of difference between being inspired or influenced by something, and copying it direct.

J.K. Rowling was inspired by other works to create something different.

In the 80s I rented a fantasy film by the name of Troll. It featured a young boy who, unbeknownst to him, had the potential to be a great wizard. His name was Harry Potter. True Story.

In the 90s I read a comic about a bespeckled British youth who, unbeknownst to him, was fated to be one of the most powerful wizards on earth. His familiar was a white owl.

Quote from: Haffrung;820688Heck, much of the material inspired by Tolkien and Rowling is so derivative that it's little more than the same story with the serial numbers filed off. And even that's okay. But the only reason to use the exact names and settings that Tolkien and Rowling used is to leverage the name recognition for commercial gains. People do not have a right to do that, and it cannot be defended on the basis of creative freedom, when it demonstrates such a dearth of creativity.

This is demonstrably false - because tons of writers use the exact names and settings from Tolkien (and many other sources - from Lovecraft and A.C. Doyle to Shakespeare and Homer) even though there is no commercial gain, because their writing is for free. So commercial gain is clearly not the only reason.

I think the reason is much the same as why some writers draw on real-world history rather than making up their own history - or draw from existing mythology rather than making up their own pantheons.  That's because they want to exercise their creativity to go further into depth and/or comment on existing material, rather than always introducing the basics.

Quote from: Haffrung;820700I agree that about 50 years sounds right.

I would prefer closer to 30, but that's somewhat quibbling since under current Western copyright law, works are typically under copyright for nearly a century or more. Note that fifty years from publication would mean that the Lord of the Rings as well as all of the Conan stories would be in the public domain - which seems to work counter to some of your examples.

The true copyright term is the 1709/10 Statute of Anne copyright term - 14 years renewable once.
All else is the work of knaves and traitors.

Quote from: jhkim;820776This is demonstrably false - because tons of writers use the exact names and settings from Tolkien (and many other sources - from Lovecraft and A.C. Doyle to Shakespeare and Homer) even though there is no commercial gain, because their writing is for free. So commercial gain is clearly not the only reason.

I actually do some editing for a lot of these writers on the side (for a fee) - and I can tell you right now - handing it out for free is usually on purpose for the intent of commercial gain in the future. First hit is free, after all. The reality is we shouldn't mistake lack of creativity in copying Tolkien than for copying Tolkien because much of his work established a lot of the tropes in the genre. Many new writers do this because it's all they know.

Quote from: jhkim;820776I think the reason is much the same as why some writers draw on real-world history rather than making up their own history - or draw from existing mythology rather than making up their own pantheons.  That's because they want to exercise their creativity to go further into depth and/or comment on existing material, rather than always introducing the basics.

Sure. The reverse of that is true too - a lot of writers have a hard time worldbuilding because it forces them to make considerations a lot of writers, especially from other genres, don't have to. It's "easy" to do it. It's hard to do it well. Building from scratch and doing it well is the hardest of all.

Quote from: tenbones;820863I actually do some editing for a lot of these writers on the side (for a fee) - and I can tell you right now - handing it out for free is usually on purpose for the intent of commercial gain in the future. First hit is free, after all.

And hey, more power to 'em. The fact Monty Oum made Dead Fantasy explicitly to land a job does absolutely nothing to diminish my appreciation of how fucking awesome it is. That it ultimately led to his making Rwby is just gravy.

I imagine the folks behind Pants are Overrated hoped the popularity of Hobbes & Bacon might translate into better times for them. I've no idea whether it did, but I still love the strips they created and that others have since picked up the idea and run with it.

Quote from: S'mon;820781The true copyright term is the 1709/10 Statute of Anne copyright term - 14 years renewable once.
All else is the work of knaves and traitors.

That was a sane kind of policy, but it would be just as useless in the new world of internet filesharing as any other law.

Quote from: RPGPundit;821200That was a sane kind of policy, but it would be just as useless in the new world of internet filesharing as any other law.

Yes, in terms of enforcement it was designed for a world of printing presses. OTOH I think most people are much more likely to accept that ripping off a brand new or 5-year-old registered product is immoral, compared to say copying stuff from a random web page for your own use, or using characters from 1920s books & films in your own work.

eg: following a dispute with Sky TV, the only way I could see seasons 3 & 4 of Game of Thrones without waiting a year was unauthorised download, but morally I would much rather pay a reasonable amount to view the shows authorisedly, and I'd like to compensate the authors & production company for their work (I believe they morally deserve compensation, but not a right to blanket ban on viewing of published work).  So when season 5 comes out shortly, if I can now see it legally by paying a reasonable amount to Youtube within a short time of first broadcast (looks to be £18 a season, which is a bit high but not too unreasonable), then I'll do that. No doubt many people will still bittorrent the show, but I don't think I'm that unusual. I've paid a lot of money to Judges Guild for old pdfs from rpgnow, too. Conversely, expecting me to pay £4 to listen to a music single, ca 1999, was just price gouging and IMO people were morally entitled to Napster it instead - expecting me to sit through 10 seconds of an ad on Youtube by contrast is a reasonable bargain, so these days if I want to listen to a song I do so on Youtube, or I buy the occasional classic album CD (just got Dire Straits 'Money for Nothing' greatest hits CD for £2.60 including p&p - I remember in 1995 paying £10 for a second hand CD of Bruce Springsteen's greatest hits - the bad old days).

Quote from: S'mon;821232Yes, in terms of enforcement it was designed for a world of printing presses. OTOH I think most people are much more likely to accept that ripping off a brand new or 5-year-old registered product is immoral, compared to say copying stuff from a random web page for your own use, or using characters from 1920s books & films in your own work.

eg: following a dispute with Sky TV, the only way I could see seasons 3 & 4 of Game of Thrones without waiting a year was unauthorised download, but morally I would much rather pay a reasonable amount to view the shows authorisedly, and I'd like to compensate the authors & production company for their work (I believe they morally deserve compensation, but not a right to blanket ban on viewing of published work).  So when season 5 comes out shortly, if I can now see it legally by paying a reasonable amount to Youtube within a short time of first broadcast (looks to be £18 a season, which is a bit high but not too unreasonable), then I'll do that. No doubt many people will still bittorrent the show, but I don't think I'm that unusual. I've paid a lot of money to Judges Guild for old pdfs from rpgnow, too. Conversely, expecting me to pay £4 to listen to a music single, ca 1999, was just price gouging and IMO people were morally entitled to Napster it instead - expecting me to sit through 10 seconds of an ad on Youtube by contrast is a reasonable bargain, so these days if I want to listen to a song I do so on Youtube, or I buy the occasional classic album CD (just got Dire Straits 'Money for Nothing' greatest hits CD for £2.60 including p&p - I remember in 1995 paying £10 for a second hand CD of Bruce Springsteen's greatest hits - the bad old days).

But it doesn't what you, one person, wants or doesn't want or is or is not willing to do.  The issue is that ANYONE can download GoT, for free, in its entirety, almost instantly after it comes out.   So millions of people do.

In essence, your options are:
a) put millions and millions of people in prison
or
b) recognize that the law is obsolete, overtaken by technology, and figure out a new way to make an economy of IP that doesn't involve holding the material hostage after the fact.


And it's only going to get worse/better (better for the world, worse -temporarily- for IP owners):