Want something new from Hollywood in the last 5 years or so? Justin Beiber(ewww! gay!)

That’s not the point though. In your example of a pilot episode of a show, it’s still all YOUR original work. Yes, you need to keep working and adding to it to keep the fans coming back. But it’s your story…I think what they are trying to say is that today, there’s too much of adopt the story of show A, change a few little things around but the main story/characters stay the same, to make show B. THAT is bad, and in no way is it innovation. Innovation would be creating your own story from scratch, not literally copy and pasting from something else.

Notice how Da Vinci didn’t need copy protection laws and yet, even according to you, without these laws more original works were created. but I was referring to the time period of

and I didn’t say that all the greatest artists in our history completely copied those before them, but their works are derivatives of works before them. and most of what Hollywood puts out and has put out before the Internet has mostly been strongly derived off of what came before it because they are and were too afraid to put out anything original, just that which they believe makes profits and has a record of doing so.

and if you, a lawyer who contributes nothing, want to start with nothing and work up, do it yourself. Don’t force others to do it. Or fund it yourself. Don’t force others to fund it through the imposition of intrusive laws. Laws shouldn’t revolve around your desire that others should start with nothing and work their way up, I’m perfectly happy with people making derivatives of the works of others and if you don’t like it then don’t do it yourself and fund your own desires yourself. But don’t force your wishes on others.

“I think what they are trying to say is that today, there’s too much of adopt the story of show A, change a few little things around but the main story/characters stay the same, to make show B.”

That’s no different than what the mainstream media has been doing for years. Pawn stars is a rip off of auction and other shows before it and then after that there is American pickers. Ghost hunters came out but I remember there being a ton of other shows like it that also came out that are basically the same thing (I can’t remember the titles of them since I really don’t watch that much T.V.). All these reality and game shows are spin offs of one another. Much of what is and was always on television is a spin off of other shows. Smallville is a spin off of superman and Lois and Clark and all these superheros and Thor are spin offs of ancient characters that were made a long time ago. What’s your point? Pretty much everything on T.V. and which has been on T.V. for since television was invented has been a spin off of other stuff.

You look a but confused.

“are you equating ‘abuse’ with ‘breaking’ the legislation ?”

No, that would be what IP extremists are doing. We are discussing abusing the law, not breaking the law. Abusing the law means the law is being used in a way that’s socially detrimental. Laws should be socially beneficial.

“laws are written to stop abuse, ie to stop breaking doing that act which is now a law.”

We’re not discussing the breaking of the law, we are discussing the misuse of the law to stifle competition in ways that the law should not be permitted to do. and laws are not designed to stop acts which are now a law, they are designed to stop acts that are against the law. and while those acts maybe abusive, those acts may also be perfectly harmless. Laws are written for a variety of reasons, some of them political in nature (ie: 95+ year copy protection lengths) and some of them pragmatic (ie: speed limits, though sometimes even speed limits can have political motivations behind them, such as revenue generation from tickets).

“Notice how Da Vinci didn’t need copy protection laws and yet, even according to you, without these laws more original works were created. but I was referring to the time period”

Of course he didn’t need copy protection laws; the internet wasn’t around to make it easier for people to say “screw you” to the artist. But now, people feel the need to not pay for their culture since it’s “natural” to copy/share whatever they want…effectively breaking THEIR end of the agreement of copyright. I remember someone on an earlier article said copyright is an agreement between the public and the artist, to treat ideas/music/art/whatever like real property that can’t be copied/shared for a time period to allow the person who made it to profit and make money for more creations; we the artist(s) are keeping our end of the deal. We still create culture for you guys. But for some reason you no longer feel the need to compensate us fairly for our work because you can just take it off the internet for free. Even though copyright HAS gotten a bit out of hand, (I honestly think it should only be 50 years and not life+50, and this is coming from a musician btw.) that doesn’t give you a right to not compensate someone for their work if you consume it. It’s not our fault the goons in charge of this country keep allowing themselves to be bought by the RIAA and whatnot…so punish THOSE people by not buying their products. Because it’s certainly not like an army of indies are demanding these ridiculous copyright extensions.

“I’m perfectly happy with people making derivatives of the works of others”

Funny. Pretty much everyone on this blog bitches about the same retreaded crap hollywood puts out these days, yet someone contradicts that by being OK with more retreaded crap. The same stuff can only be done over and over before it gets boring…if you want a dull and bland culture in terms of art, music and the like, be my guest.

I love this article and I couldn’t agree more. This is definitely one of the most creative and unique times in history. The Internet has revolutionised and changed the world so much. There has never been so much information openly availble to anyone with a computer and Internet connection. I hope the Internet continues to grow and flourish, and that bills such as SOPA never get passed. What a shame to destroy this amazing resource that we now have. It needs to be protected and enjoyed by everyone.

As a matter of historical interest, history records that the earliest known patent was issued circa 500 B.C. within Sybarius (a part of what is now southern Italy) for recipies of particular renown. Its term of exclusivity was for a period of one year.

“Of course he didn’t need copy protection laws; the internet wasn’t around to make it easier for people to say “screw you” to the artist.”

Nonsense, copy protection laws existed before the Internet was as popular as it is now. You are making an unfalsifiable claim, a claim that can’t be tested (since we can’t test how the internet would have impacted his works) and that is likely because your claim is false. Claims that are unfalsifiable are generally false.

“But now, people feel the need to not pay for their culture since it’s “natural” to copy/share whatever they want”

People copied historical documents galore in the past before the Internet, with the printing press, and even before that (the Bible and the Koran). Yet that never seemed to stop works from appearing. You’re just making things up again.

“effectively breaking THEIR end of the agreement of copyright.”

I never agreed to anything so how am I breaking my end of an agreement I never agreed to? Again, there you go again, making things up.

“I remember someone on an earlier article said copyright is an agreement between the public and the artist, to treat ideas/music/art/whatever like real property that can’t be copied/shared for a time period to allow the person who made it to profit and make money for more creations”

It can be thought of as an agreement, sure, but that agreement got broken as soon as the laws became one sided (ie: through retroactive copy protection extensions). When the government-industrial complex breaks its end of the agreement, why shouldn’t others break theirs? Copy protection can be thought of as an agreement, but for it to be so the public has to accept the terms. I as a member of the public do not accept our current terms and demand that our elected officials change or abolish them.

“we the artist(s) are keeping our end of the deal.”

No you, the IP holders (not the artists), aren’t. You keep retroactively extending copy protection lengths.

“We still create culture for you guys.”

You’re just a lawyer, you create nothing useful. and everyone participates in the creation and alteration of culture, I don’t want you to limit how others can create and modify culture just so that you will participate. If you don’t want to participate, then don’t, but don’t force your arbitrary rules on others. I don’t agree to them and I never have.

“But for some reason you no longer feel the need to compensate us fairly for our work because you can just take it off the internet for free.”

It’s not the governments job to ensure that everything is ‘fair’, this isn’t communism. Again, the purpose of IP should not be to ensure that IP holders are ‘fairly compensated’, no one is entitled to compensation, it should be to serve the public interest. and if the public doesn’t want these laws then I say we abolish them. If you feel that means you, as a non-contributing lawyer, can’t get ‘compensated’ for the works of others then find another job and see if I care. Others will create culture without you, stop pretending like we need you because no one does.

“that doesn’t give you a right to not compensate someone for their work if you consume it.”

I don’t care if you spend a million dollars digging a hole at the beach, I have a right to step over it and not compensate you. My right to not compensate IP holders for works that IP holders hold privileges to doesn’t only come from the fact that IP holders have broken their end of the social agreement (through retroactive extensions), it also comes from the fact that no one is entitled to a government sanctioned monopoly in the first place and my right to copy as I please exists outside of government. Laws are to serve a public interest, compensating the authors is merely the means, and if they don’t serve a public interest then they should be abolished.

“It’s not our fault the goons in charge of this country keep allowing themselves to be bought by the RIAA and whatnot…so punish THOSE people by not buying their products.”

I don’t buy their products, and I don’t ‘pirate’ them, but that shouldn’t stop me from opposing bad laws.

“Pretty much everyone on this blog bitches about the same retreaded crap hollywood puts out these days”

Mostly in response to people who complain that the Internet is nothing but derivatives. The argument isn’t that there is something wrong with Hollywood putting out nothing but derivatives, the argument is that if you want to complain about the Internet being nothing but derivatives then why not complain about Hollywood being nothing but derivatives even before the Internet while copy protection laws still did exist. But please continue to miss the point.

Also, part of the criticism is in the double standard Hollywood presents. They make derivative works off of others yet they want to limit how people make derivatives off of their derivatives.

Quote:

If you truly mean it when you say you are more than willing to debate, then it behooves you to listen to what others may be saying, and then engage them in a civil discussion.

Now you want to talk right, before was “you are full of it”, “this if FUD”, “You are a criminal”.

I have to agree with Mike, you are just full of shit.

I never agreed to grant no one a monopoly for life + 95 years.

Also before the internet was the tapes that would destroy the world, before that was wax, before that was paper and printing.

And so you know everybody who wanted to disregard copyright was able to and continue to be able to do so, and I hope the numbers grow, because this whole copyright thing is just nonsense, a fantasy that some are trying to grab on to that never worked and never will work.

You certainly seem to think that you’re the final word on art, so maybe I could press you to, you know, define “art?” No one’s been able to define it for centuries, but I guess you’ve cracked the code?

People here seem to be playing semantics; switching “derivative” and “inspired by” at their whim. Of course all stories/songs/paintings are derivative in the colloquial sense, as in inspired by something else. But they are not derivative in the legal sense. Writing my own song about a rock group made up of intergalactic space assassins might be inspired by Soul Music or Pirate C.O.R.P.$., but it would not be a derivative as recognized by courts, provided I don’t specifically take any of the distinct expressions from those books (and even then… I could get away with quite a lot; parody a name here or there, a little nudge nudge wink wink with a description of a character, etc)

Since a lot of people are so adamant about legal definitions of theft and infringement, I’m surprised that they’re not sticklers for the legal definition of a derivative work covered here. [wikipedia.org]

People are also playing fast and loose with the term “remix,” which I assume stems from Lessig’s hijacking of the term to further his ultimately ill-fated agenda. Star Wars isn’t a remix of old western/fantasy/samurai films, for instance. Hell, The Empire Strikes Back isn’t even a remix of A New Hope. A remix is by definition legally derivative, because they are made of distinct mechanical reproductions of the original work. I’m not trying to split hairs here, “remixed by” is an actual album credit and it means something fairly specific.

There are plenty examples of remix video work on Youtube, super-edits spring to mind, but just because something is inspired by something else (what isn’t?) doesn’t make it a remix. Even if it contains mechanical reproductions within it, it doesn’t necessarily become a remix. DJ Shadow’s work is highly derivative and full of samples, but most of it is not remixes (although he does those, too). Most hip hop songs are made of samples, but few of them would be considered remixes. Does anyone consider “Ice Ice Baby” to be a remix of “Another One Bites the Dust”?

Likewise, just because something is derivative doesn’t mean it’s uninspired.

Just saying that everything is derivative doesn’t help the conversation. It’s like proclaiming that everything is art. Well, that means “art,” as a concept, has no meaning. It’s like how there is said to be an “art” to pitching a baseball, but is pitching really art? Does being able to make it to the pros make you an artist? I’m not saying I can define the term, but then I don’t make proclamations to the effect that I know what art is.

someone can get something for free they no longer have any reason to buy it.

Not true it can diminish the reasons to buy, but it doesn’t exclude all possibilities.

You can go download CentOS is a copy of Red Hat Enterprise without the name, but it is fully operational and do everything the original does why people buy the Red Hat Enterprise?

Arduino is an opensource electronic board, everybody can copy it, modify it and still Arduino is making millions, can you explain that?

Obviously software engineers(i.e. kids who didn’t go to school and instead learned how to program) and electronic engineers are more intelligence than a musician…oh wait that is not true we all are blessed with a brain inside our skulls and it works the same for everyone, gosh artists can make money too and they don’t need copyrights(i.e. monopolies) to do it.

Yes you do; because in that example, you are not using any of my work. But if you decided that you were going to build something of your own on my land, then you most certainly would need to pay since you are then using someone else’s work. Again, if you are gonna use analogies…USE CORRECT ONES.

Except you alone don’t own the public space where your supposed property resides.

Once it leaves your hands is not your work anymore.
Just like sounds that come out of your mouth are not to be considered property and you can’t force others to cover their ears so you can speak your words in public and not have them listened illegally.

Whew…

If any of this was true I wouldn’t like myself either or pay any attention to what I said. Fortunately, I know better.

I do find it somewhat of a consolation that others who practice and/or teach law and post comments that question what is asserted here with some regularity receive much the same treatment (sans, of course, the vulgarity).

“After of course you drop the monopolistic tendencies, than we can talk, if people want to distribute something they should be able too.”

You can distribute your OWN work, or the work of someone else that ALLOWS you to do so all you want. But if someone is trying to sell a product, you can’t just turn around and offer it for free. You’ll drive away all their business. Here’s a fun example.

If you ran a grocery store and I decided to “distribute” free groceries outside your store, according to your logic it is 100% ok to do that since I should have the right to distribute whatever I want, wherever I want. And clearly you aren’t running your business right since your customers decide not to go in your store after getting what they wanted for free. In this case, you too would have the market there; so apparently you suck for not making your customers buy your stuff instead of taking the free product that is the same exact thing.

The rest of the DMCA has *empirically* caused tremendous harm to innovation already.

Like?

Or is this just more of your usual hot air that you never provide evidence for?

Guess the store better start putting ads on everything to make some money. Oh, and some t-shirts/mugs/other scarcities and connecting with their fans would probably be great too. Clearly since their core product is free they need to sell scarcities. AND DON’T FORGET THE LIVE PERFORMANCES! They could totally hire a famous chef to juggle the food as they’re cooking it while the employees are dancing at the same time. WHEEEE!!!!!

It always starts with copying, but then people go on to put their own spin, and then unique brand of creation. The key is, because of the ability to share work, more people are bothering to make it. If it’s difficult to share your work, why bother making it?