Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#111

Post by icambron »

rational_indian wrote: post #100
prewett wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans see everyone as equal in status (in theory); in paragraph two of our first document, we say that it is, in fact, self-evident that all men are created equal. Since we are all equal, titles don't really serve much purpose, as the whole point of titles is to distinguish yourself.

>we say that it is, in fact, self-evident that all men are created equal. How is this self evident?

The nature of self-evidence is that you don't have to say how.

(Though I'm not sure I agree with the parent point that Americans as a group really believe equality in the relevant sense here.)

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#112

Post by dragonwriter »

prewett wrote: post #86
snogglethorpe wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know a lot of people with PhDs, but I can't think of any who want to be called "Doctor", because that's exceedingly silly. I know it works a bit differently outside of the US. Yes, I've noticed a very strong correlation between country and insistence on using a title conferred by a PhD. Americans do in general seem fairly relaxed about it.

Americans see everyone as equal in status (in theory); in paragraph two of our first document, we say that it is, in fact, self-evident that all men are created equal. Since we are all equal, titles don't really serve much purpose, as the whole point of titles is to distinguish yourself.

"are created equal" means a very different thing than "are equal".

Even Americans who really do believe that all people are created equal (which any discussion thread on any major forum -- including HN -- on gender or race issues, among other topics, will reveal is far from all Americans) rarely believe that all people are equal.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#114

Post by derleth »

njharman wrote: post #107
officemonkey wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Whenever people talk about Mickey Mouse entering the public domain like it's the end of the world, I point to the Fleischer Studio Superman Cartoons that were made in the 1940s. Those cartoons are in the public domain and people may copy or sell them as much as they want. However, since DC Comics still holds a trademark on Superman, you can't use Superman for anything else. In fact, when I bought a VHS tape of…

Because it's not about Mickey. It's about suppressing the ideas that copyright is a granted right, a temporary right, that everything starts out free (as in freedom) and is only temporarily monopolized for the betterment of society, that the public domain exists. And to reinforce that idea that culture, art, entertainment are products owned by corporations which must be paid for.

> the ideas that copyright is a granted right

So is ownership of land, when you come down to it. We like to pretend, in most countries, that land tenure is absolute and that it's the foundation of society, but it isn't. Only a sovereign has absolute land tenure, and the only sovereigns in the modern Western world are corporate entities called governments. (A constitutional monarchy is pleased to pretend that certain individuals are sovereign, but in point of practical fact a crowned head can be deposed by a functional constitutional government.) Everyone else holds tenure contingent on their sovereign not exercising eminent domain to take the land from them and use it to its own ends. Sure, you'll likely get paid, but you don't have the option of turning down the offer and keeping the land.

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." -- Thomas Jefferson

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#115

Post by mcguire »

derleth wrote: post #108
scoot wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found it amusing to learn that, in some parts of the world, surgeons are conferred the title of Mr, Miss, Mrs or Ms as preferential to Dr, as if above the petty nonsense of using "Dr" as a social differentiator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon#Titles And now we are wildly off-topic!

Also because surgeons were manual laborers, and therefore not accorded the same respect as gentleman physicians.

A fact that you can gain no end of entertainment from, if you keep reminding your surgeon friends of it.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#116

Post by prawn »

eurleif wrote: post #47
davidw wrote: post #22

I'm in favor of IP laws, including copyright, but with the idea of creating incentives for people to create. Putting Sherlock Holmes in the public domain is probably not going to have much effect on Arthur Conan-Doyle's writing output, though, so it's probably a good thing at this point.

>Putting Sherlock Holmes in the public domain is probably not going to have much effect on Arthur Conan-Doyle's writing output, though, so it's probably a good thing at this point. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but couldn't the precedent have an effect on the creative output of people alive today, based on their desire for their descendants to inherit something valuable?

I know a few people who derive much of their living from creative enterprise. None of them at all would be put off doing what they do because their efforts wouldn't provide for generations past their own. If you write, draw, paint or create music, you do so because of some blend of being good at it and having a burning need to create.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#117

Post by Turing_Machine »

snogglethorpe wrote: post #83
icambron wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also ridiculous. That some institution granted you a degree doesn't compel the rest of us to call you by a special name. When I ask medical doctors about that (my wife is one, for example), their main reason for supporting the "Dr" title is that it creates a sort of formal separation between the patient and the doctor which keeps things professional, similar to how we had to call our elementary teachers "Mr" or "Ms".…

> I know a lot of people with PhDs, but I can't think of any who want to be called "Doctor", because that's exceedingly silly. I know it works a bit differently outside of the US. Yes, I've noticed a very strong correlation between country and insistence on using a title conferred by a PhD. Americans do in general seem fairly relaxed about it.

The social rule I was taught (in the U.S.) is that if you have a PhD in whangabangology, it's okay to call yourself "Dr. Blah" or "Joe Blah, PhD" in a professional context (writing a paper on whangabangology, or teaching it, or giving a professional talk, or appearing at an official university function), but not in a social context (making a restaurant reservation, say, or being introduced to someone at a party).

Professional usage varies a lot by institution. Where I went to grad school, undergraduates usually use "Doctor" or "Professor" when addressing a member of the faculty, but graduate students usually call the professors that they actually know by their given names. I understand that's not the case everywhere; at some schools even grad students who have worked with a professor for years are still expected to address them by title. I have heard (but have not personal knowledge one way or the other) that the University of Chicago is one of these.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#118

Post by serge2k »

eurleif wrote: post #47
davidw wrote: post #22

I'm in favor of IP laws, including copyright, but with the idea of creating incentives for people to create. Putting Sherlock Holmes in the public domain is probably not going to have much effect on Arthur Conan-Doyle's writing output, though, so it's probably a good thing at this point.

>Putting Sherlock Holmes in the public domain is probably not going to have much effect on Arthur Conan-Doyle's writing output, though, so it's probably a good thing at this point. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but couldn't the precedent have an effect on the creative output of people alive today, based on their desire for their descendants to inherit something valuable?

Why should their descendants get a damn thing, they didn't do the work.

Copyrights should end at death, or a fixed term in the case of a corporation.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#119

Post by eurleif »

prawn wrote: post #116
eurleif wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Putting Sherlock Holmes in the public domain is probably not going to have much effect on Arthur Conan-Doyle's writing output, though, so it's probably a good thing at this point. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but couldn't the precedent have an effect on the creative output of people alive today, based on their desire for their descendants to inherit something valuable?

I know a few people who derive much of their living from creative enterprise. None of them at all would be put off doing what they do because their efforts wouldn't provide for generations past their own. If you write, draw, paint or create music, you do so because of some blend of being good at it and having a burning need to create .

Taken to its logical conclusion, the "burning need to create" argument implies that creative people don't respond to economic incentives at all, and that copyright doesn't help increase creative production at all. I've seen people make that argument. But that's just not true; at the very least, making money from your creative work can mean you don't have to work a regular job, and can focus on being creative.

And sometimes people work a job not to support themselves, but to create inheritance money for future generations.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#120

Post by prawn »

eurleif wrote: post #119
prawn wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a few people who derive much of their living from creative enterprise. None of them at all would be put off doing what they do because their efforts wouldn't provide for generations past their own. If you write, draw, paint or create music, you do so because of some blend of being good at it and having a burning need to create .

Taken to its logical conclusion, the "burning need to create" argument implies that creative people don't respond to economic incentives at all, and that copyright doesn't help increase creative production at all. I've seen people make that argument. But that's just not true; at the very least, making money from your creative work can mean you don't have to work a regular job, and can focus on being creative. And som…

Not arguing against rights for creators, but against rights that go beyond their lifetimes. I think people work to create an immediate future for their children, but I've never met anyone who's spoken of creating an inheritance for a time beyond that.
Post reply on HN