Writing books is not really a good idea • Hacker News Board

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#601

Post by OldTimeCoffee » Tue, May 11, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

nearbuy wrote: post #598

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I was more making is how do you handle successful things that are long term viable. Such as Mickey Mouse, Sherlock Holmes, etc. Though, yes, it's overstated the impact. The 1976 act was more impactful than the Sonny Bono Act. Everything having a lifetime copyright has it's own problems, but cutting everything to 20 years creates it own.

I'm really not sure it's much of a problem. Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, and as far as I know, it's been fine. That might be why there have been so many movies and shows based on the character recently. Imagine it's 2024 and the original Mickey Mouse cartoon just entered the public domain. How does this impact Disney? -Anyone could watch Steamboat Willie for free (assuming it's online somewhere). I don't…

Sherlock Holmes is not in the public domain in full. Most of the things we think of as 'Sherlock Holmes' are from stories still in copyright. It's why you see Elementary as a property and Sherlock as modern day. Counterintuitively they had to come up with new ideas because the existing ideas are locked up with copyright.

Couple of other issues.

"Small studios and independent artists could use the original Mickey character"

"Other manufacturers could make Mickey Mouse merchandise. This is probably the biggest direct harm to Disney, but I don't think it'll make much impact on their revenue."

The reason you've seen them make Steamboat Willie LEGO and the current "old-style" Mickey Mouse cartoons is because they're setting up a copyright argument if someone tried. They're also setting up the same arguments that Sherlock Holmes uses which is that the elements of Mickey in Steamboat Willie have been used recently and are thus still locked up by copyright. You can distribute Steamboat Willie, but can not otherwise use the property. The Sherlock Holmes case is here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163248743572192...

"Which is exactly what copyright was supposed to encourage."

No, copyright is an exclusive distribution right. It's a government granted monopoly to provide protection to creative works. The history of copyright is pretty interesting in an of itself and starts with the printing press in the 1500s. Long story short, though, it's always been about commercial exploitation of a creative work.

This was edited to correct some info.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#602

Post by zffr » Tue, May 11, 2021, 9:10 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #583

zffr wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve always wondered how much of a direct impact your self assessment actually has on your compensation adjustment. At least in my current job, I feel like my manager already has a ball-park idea of the Comp adjustment to give me. It feels like I would probably get more or less the same adjustment no matter what I write so long as I write something reasonable

Even if your manager will mostly rely on their own judgement, the write-ups will be the only thing that future managers (at the same org) can rely on to learn about your work, and also for things like promotion, your manager will probably need to convince a committee, so being able to draw from your self-assessment will help them argue your case.

Yeah that makes sense thanks. Obvious in retrospect, but I had not considered that people other than my manager might see my self-assessment

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#603

Post by nearbuy » Tue, May 11, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #600

MereInterest wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something has long-term public appeal, fantastic. Then the creators should be glad to have contributed something that lasted so long. But when you say "viable", I hear an implication of "commercial viability". I think that's a poor framework in which to understand copyright duration. The public domain isn't meant to be a dumping ground for forgotten properties. Rather, the public domain is a wellspring from which…

Fair enough, but commercial viability is the point of copyright. It's an exclusive distribution right of a creative work. We've carved out tons of exceptions for copyright for things like parody, educational purposes, etc., but at it's core it's a distribution right and nothing else. Instead of working in an existing property, it's better to create something new, even if you're inspired by the other thing. The entire…

> The games industry also has lots of good examples of creating new works using existing ideas without violating copyright.

Games are interesting because games copy each other incessantly but almost never sue over copyright.

The actual source code and art would clearly fall under copyright, but not the gameplay. So when PUBG discovered the popular battle royale genre, everyone rushed to copy it and now we have Fortnite, Apex Legends, Call of Duty Battle Royale, etc. When Dota was popular, it spawned tons of clones. Minecraft spawned tons of clones. In some cases where the clones are too similar, the original creator may have legal grounds for suing, but they seldom do so.

Short of blatantly stealing assets from another game, it's hard to get in trouble over another game's copyright.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#604

Post by nearbuy » Tue, May 11, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #601

nearbuy wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not sure it's much of a problem. Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, and as far as I know, it's been fine. That might be why there have been so many movies and shows based on the character recently. Imagine it's 2024 and the original Mickey Mouse cartoon just entered the public domain. How does this impact Disney? -Anyone could watch Steamboat Willie for free (assuming it's online somewhere). I don't…

Sherlock Holmes is not in the public domain in full. Most of the things we think of as 'Sherlock Holmes' are from stories still in copyright. It's why you see Elementary as a property and Sherlock as modern day. Counterintuitively they had to come up with new ideas because the existing ideas are locked up with copyright. Couple of other issues. "Small studios and independent artists could use the original Mickey char…

Yeah, not all Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain. As it says in the case you linked only 10 stories out of 56 plus 4 novels were still under copyright (now down to 6).

The Doyle estate lost the case you're referring to and Klinger was allowed to publish his derivative stories.

Disney could try to sue, but I don't think their case is any stronger than the Sherlock Holmes case if the defendant is only deriving material from the original Mickey cartoon.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#605

Post by OldTimeCoffee » Tue, May 11, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

nearbuy wrote: post #603

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but commercial viability is the point of copyright. It's an exclusive distribution right of a creative work. We've carved out tons of exceptions for copyright for things like parody, educational purposes, etc., but at it's core it's a distribution right and nothing else. Instead of working in an existing property, it's better to create something new, even if you're inspired by the other thing. The entire…

> The games industry also has lots of good examples of creating new works using existing ideas without violating copyright. Games are interesting because games copy each other incessantly but almost never sue over copyright. The actual source code and art would clearly fall under copyright, but not the gameplay. So when PUBG discovered the popular battle royale genre, everyone rushed to copy it and now we have Fortni…

Yep, ideas vs execution. You see it in books and music pretty frequently as well. Twilight is a great example because it spawned a ton of clones. Music was pretty insulated until fairly recently with some lawsuits over similarities being a bit... questionable.

Side note, this has been a really good thread to read and respond to.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#606

Post by OldTimeCoffee » Tue, May 11, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

nearbuy wrote: post #604

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sherlock Holmes is not in the public domain in full. Most of the things we think of as 'Sherlock Holmes' are from stories still in copyright. It's why you see Elementary as a property and Sherlock as modern day. Counterintuitively they had to come up with new ideas because the existing ideas are locked up with copyright. Couple of other issues. "Small studios and independent artists could use the original Mickey char…

Yeah, not all Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain. As it says in the case you linked only 10 stories out of 56 plus 4 novels were still under copyright (now down to 6). The Doyle estate lost the case you're referring to and Klinger was allowed to publish his derivative stories. Disney could try to sue, but I don't think their case is any stronger than the Sherlock Holmes case if the defendant is only der…

Klinger was seeking declaratory judgement that he could use the non-protected elements. Doyle estate was saying he couldn't. It was agreed by both parties that he couldn't use elements contained in the 10 stories.

From the case listed "And the claim is correct, for he acknowledges that those copyrights are valid and that the only copying he wants to include in his book is copying of the Holmes and Watson characters as they appear in the earlier stories and in the novels."

Mickey Mouse will most certainly not be in the public domain anymore than he is now. Disney can also fall back on trademark law to take care of Disney's use as well.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#607

Post by iggldiggl » Tue, May 11, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #97

GekkePrutser wrote: post #73

> As the going wisdom states: it only takes 1,000 true fans spending $100/year for a creator to earn a salary of $100,000/year—and there are 83,397 books every year that have at least 1,000 true fans. Theoretically then, an author could release a new chapter every week, charge subscribers $8 or $9 a month, and earn $100,000 a year—from only 1,000 readers. She's basically proposing an episodic model for books, with ea…

> I don't think this'll work. Authors tend to have phases of inspiration, and lulls in between. The pressure of the next episode would lead to 'phoned in' chapters. Not just from the author's side. From a reader's perspective this would also not work. I don't want to start reading a book a chapter at a time. I don't even like reading books that are part of an unfinished series. For me, as someone who reads quite a lo…

> The worst is when a series is 5-6 books in, you binge through them in a couple of days and when the next part is released you can't be bothered because you have forgotten what it was about.

While I know that feeling somewhat…

> I wish authors would take the Netflix approach and just finish the entire series before releasing it.

… how would that work when series of books (at least the ones I'm familiar with) are often written and published over the course of several years, or perhaps in some cases even decades, i.e. much slower than your typical Netflix series?

At those timescales, that means authors would be getting neither feedback nor payments for a very long time, and it also increases the risk that in the end, the whole thing might not be published at all.

While unfinished series of books (or unfinished books themselves for that matter) can indeed be frustrating from a certain point of view, I still think the world is mostly a better place for them having already been published even in that unfinished state.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#608

Post by nearbuy » Tue, May 11, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #606

nearbuy wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, not all Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain. As it says in the case you linked only 10 stories out of 56 plus 4 novels were still under copyright (now down to 6). The Doyle estate lost the case you're referring to and Klinger was allowed to publish his derivative stories. Disney could try to sue, but I don't think their case is any stronger than the Sherlock Holmes case if the defendant is only der…

Klinger was seeking declaratory judgement that he could use the non-protected elements. Doyle estate was saying he couldn't. It was agreed by both parties that he couldn't use elements contained in the 10 stories. From the case listed "And the claim is correct, for he acknowledges that those copyrights are valid and that the only copying he wants to include in his book is copying of the Holmes and Watson characters a…

I think we have the same understanding of the case then. We seem to have a different conclusion on derivative works based on the original Mickey Mouse once it enters the public domain. I agree with you that modern Mickey would still be under copyright.

It's a bit of a moot point in my opinion, because I don't think anyone outside of Disney would even want to make more of 1928 Mickey. It's old. It's not popular. Maybe they'd use him for a cameo or for parody, but shows already do that anyway, regardless of the copyright [1].

[1] https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Mickey_Mouse

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#609

Post by webmaven » Tue, May 11, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #588

burntoutfire wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> about the wealthy Most books are written about the wealthy?

Not always about the wealthy, but often at least through the lens of the wealthy . Rich people write about poor people differently than poor people would write about poor people. But also, yes, often about the wealthy. Here's synposes of four of the five current NY Times Bestsellers: > Over twenty years ago, the heiress Patricia Lockwood was abducted during a robbery of her family's estate, then locked inside an isol…

> You may argue "Well, sure, but people like reading about the rich and powerful because they are more exciting to read about." But that is in itself partially a result of a culture we've built that says that your story is less meaningful if you aren't successful or powerful.

There is something to what you say, but perhaps less than you think. Stories about unjustly downtrodden members of the elite overcoming adversity and opposition to return to their rightful place in the social order (eg. every fairytale princess ever) didn't circulate as oral traditions for centuries due to the patronage of the upper crust. Nor can you really explain the popularity of the current incarnations of these stories (eg. as Disney princesses) that way.

Incidentally, I (vaguely) recall a story about a wizard from an alternate reality seeking out a baby switched at birth with one in our world. Said baby grew up to be a garbage man in our world, but always felt out of place. Said wizard offers to return said garbage man to his rightful place in the magical realm.

Bapr gurl'ir erghearq gb gur zntvpny ernyz ur'f unaqrq n oebbz naq gbyq gb fgneg fjrrcvat bhg gur fgnoyrf.

This was a short story (perhaps even a short-short), and not Zelazny's Wizard World novel (or any other novel).

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#610

Post by JetSpiegel » Tue, May 11, 2021, 11:06 PM UTC

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #605

nearbuy wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The games industry also has lots of good examples of creating new works using existing ideas without violating copyright. Games are interesting because games copy each other incessantly but almost never sue over copyright. The actual source code and art would clearly fall under copyright, but not the gameplay. So when PUBG discovered the popular battle royale genre, everyone rushed to copy it and now we have Fortni…

Yep, ideas vs execution. You see it in books and music pretty frequently as well. Twilight is a great example because it spawned a ton of clones. Music was pretty insulated until fairly recently with some lawsuits over similarities being a bit... questionable. Side note, this has been a really good thread to read and respond to.

> Twilight is a great example because it spawned a ton of clones.

Even Twilight fanficton like 50 Shades of Gray launched even more imitators!