Earlier quoted context omitted.
> From my perspective from reading and watching fan fiction, these unofficial derived works are typically significantly more distinct and interesting than the official sequels, and I'd be cool with these getting bigger budgets. This suggests that copyright isn't holding back these works...
"This suggests that copyright isn't holding back these works..." IF the copyright holders are kind enough not to harass those fans for infringement. And this kindness is quite commonplace in some contexts (people writing stories about their favorite literary characters rarely get cease-and-desisted), but much less in others ("fanfic" movies about Mickey Mouse are a no-go even for free).
EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
141–150 of 208 posts
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people had original ideas before the invention of copyright 300 years ago Not in dispute but that's also not the point being argued. The argument is: a) whether copyright kills original ideas. I don't think it does but would love to understand what the mechanism is if you think otherwise. b) whether removing copyright would lead to more "milking of same old topics" in movies. I think the answer is self-evidently ye…
Whether removing copyright would lead to more "milking of same old topics" in movies. I think the answer is self-evidently yes. This is not self-evident to me, at least as far as "milking" goes. Inspiration is not the same as milking. I specifically use the word "milking" for the sort of low-level repetitive quasi-effort that the cinemas are full of. OTOH if someone takes, IDK, Don Quijote and rewrites it into a spac…
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people had original ideas before the invention of copyright 300 years ago Not in dispute but that's also not the point being argued. The argument is: a) whether copyright kills original ideas. I don't think it does but would love to understand what the mechanism is if you think otherwise. b) whether removing copyright would lead to more "milking of same old topics" in movies. I think the answer is self-evidently ye…
Whether removing copyright would lead to more "milking of same old topics" in movies. I think the answer is self-evidently yes. This is not self-evident to me, at least as far as "milking" goes. Inspiration is not the same as milking. I specifically use the word "milking" for the sort of low-level repetitive quasi-effort that the cinemas are full of. OTOH if someone takes, IDK, Don Quijote and rewrites it into a spac…
Don Quixote is in the public domain. Copyright isn’t holding back adaptations.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright covers a lot more than the long tail of indie music bands who stream a few thousand plays on Spotify. This thread has a lot of arguments based entirely on beliefs about small bands and streaming services. Music is only a small part of copyright law.
I have the same understanding regarding YouTubers and writers. There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a living wage. And ironically, the best way to get more attention is to make your product free, hence more and more artists doing free + paid merch.
The YouTube income for most small creators get folded back into the channel. Getting a $100 check from YouTube isn’t going to pay your rent, but it makes purchasing some better lighting or a new microphone for the channel an easy choice, which in turn helps them grow and enjoy their hobby channel more.
The argument that the dollar amount is low and therefore it’s okay if we push it all the way to $0 is unconvincing for anyone familiar with how small time creators grow.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#145Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster p…
Author: I spent six months writing this story, I hope I can make some money selling it, it would be my dream to be able to keep doing this full time. You: I will steal this, consume it, reprint it as I see fit and you will earn nothing. Yeah... I don't think your opinions are worth much.
It's your property. Do what you want with it. In a free society, the public isn't compelled to buy your books.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and oh the poor artists: next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore, streaming income is close to zero usually even if popular Your argument is that artists aren’t paid enough, so we should go ahead and take it all the way to zero by law?
I'm not an artist and might be entirely wrong, but my understanding is that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their revenue is from concerts tickets, merch and other physical products, rather than digital/broadcast plays, so changing this to zero wouldn't really affect them, but would act to reduce the power of the labels and other intermediaries over them.
Moviemakers, authors, graphic designers, stone masons, song writers, ...
Not every artists is a musician.
Not every musician performs in venues to such an extent that it makes up most or all of their revenue.
Not every musicians output lends themselves to live performances, so they don't do them.
I'd be surprised if even 10% of artists in the EU or US are making their revenue as live musicians. Whatever the number, it ain't 99%.
Brief anecdote, currently working on a personal project and have commissioned an artist to design a few icons. Was a great experience, fun to work with them, more than happy with the result. Exclusive exploitation/usage rights were only transferred after full compensation was received.
If copyright were not a thing in both their and mine countries, screwing over commissioned artists would be even easier than it already and unfortunately tends to be (having done freelance work myself) as this idea that the artist retains their rights before that point wouldn't be the default and any protections/claims solely based on individual contracts.
Copyright can be flawed, yes, but taking away the core that is artists having their creations protected by default, without needing to manually apply or otherwise seek protection, I feel that shouldn't happen. Copyright, even today, does have merit in my book, though the lobbying efforts by Disney and co. along with post War western Europe loving to just copy US legislation wholesale without reflection have extended copyright further then I feel it should have been.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether removing copyright would lead to more "milking of same old topics" in movies. I think the answer is self-evidently yes. This is not self-evident to me, at least as far as "milking" goes. Inspiration is not the same as milking. I specifically use the word "milking" for the sort of low-level repetitive quasi-effort that the cinemas are full of. OTOH if someone takes, IDK, Don Quijote and rewrites it into a spac…
> Don Quijote and rewrites it into a space opera, it might actually be genuine fun Don Quixote is in the public domain. Copyright isn’t holding back adaptations.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This suggests that copyright isn't holding back these works..." IF the copyright holders are kind enough not to harass those fans for infringement. And this kindness is quite commonplace in some contexts (people writing stories about their favorite literary characters rarely get cease-and-desisted), but much less in others ("fanfic" movies about Mickey Mouse are a no-go even for free).
As an aside, I don’t know that fan fiction is the strongest case for originality!
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Knitters and crocheters who create patterns? Wow, is that a thing? If you're willing to share, I'd love to hear more about these vocations and how they make money.
People who are well-versed in fields like fashion will create original designs which include yarn requirements, needle size, measurements, stitch instructions, construction steps, etc etc and sell them in online marketplaces like Etsy or Revelry.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
It matters because copyright is widely abused and hurts neutral sites which must constantly check for copyrighted content, and it would’ve hampered AI if it was enforced. Your analogy doesn’t fit because a house is physical, but “intellectual property” is digital. If we lived in the metaverse and I could just copy your house and live in it without affecting you, why should you care? Theft is bad because the victim no…
Theft in this case is bad because you're removing the ability of someone to make a living from the thing they created. On the basis it's digital. I don't care if it's digital, I care if it took time and effort to create. If it did, it does not matter if it's digital or physical, it's theft.
So abolish copyright, and indies still make money from creating digital works - at least almost as much as they do now, but probably more, because it will further normalize the alternate incomes.
Copyright maybe used to help indies, but every copyright case I’ve heard anywhere in the last decade, the plaintiff is a publisher with more than enough revenue. Meanwhile, in many cases the defendant hasn’t actually infringed, but regardless suffers from the DMCA, C&D, or lawsuit. Copyright relies on wishful thinking to provide an illusion of helping small-time creators, in reality far more often it hurts them.