Salta al contenuto principale

I propose the "Alice in Wonderland" metric for copyright discussions. Should we be allowed to freely share and make adaptations of Diney's 1951 Alice in Wonderland?

Alice in Wonderland is:

(1) Based on a book written in 1865 which is in the public domain

(2) Of major cultural importance on its own merits

(3) Four generations old

(4) Copyrighted until (at least) 2036

(5) Trapped in the "Disney Vault" and not available by legal means
in reply to Drew DeVault

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
Bonus: my mother is generally supportive of copyright, but she's also obsessed with Alice in Wonderland and owns all kinds of unlicensed merchandise, so maybe this argument will convince her 😉
in reply to Drew DeVault

Ivan Sagalaev :flag_wbw:
Ivan Sagalaev :flag_wbw:
•
I don't even think we need a metric. There's no evidence copyright actually helps creators anymore. It's just parasites living off someone's creations pretending to be indispensable.

Drew DeVault reshared this.

in reply to Ivan Sagalaev :flag_wbw:

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
I agree with you entirely, but it's good to have arguments to gradually bring someone entirely opposed to this gradually around to our viewpoint
Unknown parent

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
oh man, you are entirely right but the problem of making your point widely accepted is so much bigger than the copyright debate
in reply to Drew DeVault

kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
•
why not "authors lifespan + 20 years"?

It gives creators the rights to their work for their entire lives.
It gives their children access to that in their estate for at least their childhood years.
It ties specific creations to specific people: you cannot have a corporation continuously churn the copyright over and over.
It's sufficiently long and easily explainable that it should be an easy sell to people (though maybe not the industry and its lobby).

Downsides: probably a bit more expensive to track. Who is responsible for informing the copyright office when an author dies?
Someone will probably argue that it's not fair that your work is only yours to benefit from for 20 years if you die the day it's published, compared to about 80 if you write it young.
in reply to kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
why should an author have ownership over intellectual works for their entire lives? Why should their children be entitled to it at all? Argue your point from first principles.
in reply to Drew DeVault

kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
•
I believe that intellectual works are no less valuable than physical works. In the same way that no one should be able to take your rightfully owned, self-crafted chair while you live, no one should take your intellectual work and force it into the public domain while you live. Of course, you always retain the right to do so yourself if you think that is right and just.

Similarly, in the same way that you can hand down property, you should be able to hand down your intellectual output. If your parents were highly reliant on the income that comes from copyright and licensing, you should be able to inherit that such that your parents efforts can support you until you are your own adult.

This, of course, hinges on authors not being coerced into signing away their copyright to abusive corporations. It's more about making "intellectual property" (a poisoned phrase) more like physical property, but also maintaining a mechanism that allows the value from it to fall into the public domain in a fairly reasonable time in the grand scheme of things. It's not about rent-seeking by building IP franchises that can be milked in perpetuity.
in reply to kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Drew DeVault
Drew DeVault
•
>I believe that intellectual works are no less valuable than physical works. In the same way that no one should be able to take your rightfully owned, self-crafted chair while you live, no one should take your intellectual work and force it into the public domain while you live.

This is demonstrably false. The chair required wood and time to produce. Copying the blueprint requires 25c for the copy machine at the gas station down the street.
in reply to Drew DeVault

kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
•
I'm not arguing that the chair requires more materials.

It's a bit like the whole "why should I pay you for fixing my PC, it only taken you 30 seconds to <install patch/remove broken stuff/etc>".

There's intangible value in knowledge, creativity, and expression. I happily pay for books. If I could pay authors directly for their work (and it really is work to write a book), I'd be happier.

I reject that their lives work should be anything less than their life's work.
in reply to kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
•
Why should there be a copyright office in the first place?
Also the part that truly sucks about copyright: In some parts of Europe you can't assign to the public domain, you have to use the CC0 or similar.
At least we get the interoperability exception so basically in EU any non-portable software can be reversed easily.
in reply to kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Elena ``of Valhalla''
Elena ``of Valhalla''
•
@kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 I'd think more like authors lifespan or a minimum of 20 years: this way the author's work is likely to be remunerated even if they die a premature death, but on the other extreme there is really no reason to keep copyright on something written by somebody in their 20s after they have died in their 80s.

Company-owned copyright limited to 20 years, of course, since the people who did the work already received their wages no matter what happens to the company.
@kline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
in reply to Drew DeVault

Jake Bauer (DEFUNCT)
Jake Bauer (DEFUNCT)
•
Definitely. Works should be automatically placed in the public domain after a set, consistent amount of time (no "life of the author" shenanigans).

Something like a decade seems like enough time for an artist to create something, make money off of their creation, and then the public can have their go with making adaptations/using it.

Much like the way patents currently work—though there are some serious flaws with that system right now too. Fair use also needs to be way less restrictive.
in reply to Drew DeVault

murph
murph
•
How about 14 years, renewable by the original author. There is no way to encourage a creator to create more works after they pass on. Wasn't that the original purpose of copyright? "To promote the useful arts and science" Subsequently to get those created works into the public domain, so a short monopoly to get the works created, and then released back to the public? (That's how I understood it anyway)

Questo sito utilizza cookie per riconosce gli utenti loggati e quelli che tornano a visitare. Proseguendo la navigazione su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo di questi cookie.

⇧