Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 12:22:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
So ERB wrote a number of popular novels, during his life if you want to print or make a movie or anything based of his works you have to pay him. After he dies it ALL reverts to public domain.

So you're saying if I want to publish my thousand page long fanfiction, the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm....

LOL no, fanfiction should have an exception as long as you're not selling it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 12:25:36 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 12:22:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
So ERB wrote a number of popular novels, during his life if you want to print or make a movie or anything based of his works you have to pay him. After he dies it ALL reverts to public domain.

So you're saying if I want to publish my thousand page long fanfiction, the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm....

LOL no, fanfiction should have an exception as long as you're not selling it.

So you're saying if if my megacorp want to produce a megamovie based on some author's work, then the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm...

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:12:55 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 12:25:36 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 12:22:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
So ERB wrote a number of popular novels, during his life if you want to print or make a movie or anything based of his works you have to pay him. After he dies it ALL reverts to public domain.

So you're saying if I want to publish my thousand page long fanfiction, the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm....

LOL no, fanfiction should have an exception as long as you're not selling it.

So you're saying if if my megacorp want to produce a megamovie based on some author's work, then the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm...

No, I'm saying they need to pay him for the right to make the movie, much like today they pay to JK Rowling.

As for convenient accidents, what's sttoping any megacorp from doing that today? How do we know they haven't done it?

If they thought the heirs would be more amenable to selling the IP to them why wouldn't they?

Are you for the status quo or for the AnCap position of abolishing the IP?

I'm neither, a moderate position of lets change this shit so it doesn't let Disney keep on pushing the expiration date into the future forever. While still giving the author's some protections.

Because convenient accidents won't result in the author's work being dumped into the public domain anytime in the useful future.

Incentives matter, and you're proposing a very negative one.

...
If you're demanding my position on the topic, I don't have a clear stance. I tend to believe in the old information must free mantra that led to GNU and volumes of freeware, and don't think more and more of our cultural legacy should be locked up in perpetual hereditary trusts or controlled by large corporations. But I also see the value in granting a temporary monopoly to someone who comes up with something novel, so they can profit from it, because that encourages people to create more things that will eventually add to our shared heritage.

But I also completely reject the idea that it's a natural right. That just because you wrote a song, you should have absolute control over it forever. No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons. If we decide to grant you a temporary monopoly, it's not because you own it, but because we've decided it's a good way to incentivize people to create more. Thus it should always be temporary, and while the period should be long enough to give you time to do all the work it to bring it to a wider audience, it shouldn't be some indefinitely long period. I don't have an exact figure, but even 20 years for patents seem excessive, much less the absurd lengths of current copyrights.

Too many people have come to think of it as an entitlement, or property, which isn't why these kinds of laws were created. I think we should treat them more like a grant or a subsidy; something given by the general public at their discretion because they think it creates a better outcome, rather than something demanded as a right.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
Because convenient accidents won't result in the author's work being dumped into the public domain anytime in the useful future.

Incentives matter, and you're proposing a very negative one.

...
If you're demanding my position on the topic, I don't have a clear stance. I tend to believe in the old information must free mantra that led to GNU and volumes of freeware, and don't think more and more of our cultural legacy should be locked up in perpetual hereditary trusts or controlled by large corporations. But I also see the value in granting a temporary monopoly to someone who comes up with something novel, so they can profit from it, because that encourages people to create more things that will eventually add to our shared heritage.

But I also completely reject the idea that it's a natural right. That just because you wrote a song, you should have absolute control over it forever. No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons. If we decide to grant you a temporary monopoly, it's not because you own it, but because we've decided it's a good way to incentivize people to create more. Thus it should always be temporary, and while the period should be long enough to give you time to do all the work it to bring it to a wider audience, it shouldn't be some indefinitely long period. I don't have an exact figure, but even 20 years for patents seem excessive, much less the absurd lengths of current copyrights.

Too many people have come to think of it as an entitlement, or property, which isn't why these kinds of laws were created. I think we should treat them more like a grant or a subsidy; something given by the general public at their discretion because they think it creates a better outcome, rather than something demanded as a right.

So we change it, life of the author or 20 years, whatever comes first (or make it 20 years period). So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author. And remove all trademarks over the work at the same time.

Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

Edited to add:

You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

If I "manufacture" a house, you are free to copy it. Ideas are not propriety. Words and sentences are not property. You cannot take my novel any more that you can take my Shakespeare books of my shelves. You can, however, copy your own books (wether they were authored by me or Shakespeare) in your own computers, notebooks, pen drives, etc.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

Sound reasoning.  If all creative works become free public domain, then all creators will be broke.  There will be much less incentive to create.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:36:42 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

If I "manufacture" a house, you are free to copy it. Ideas are not propriety. Words and sentences are not property. You cannot take my novel any more that you can take my Shakespeare books of my shelves. You can, however, copy your own books (wether they were authored by me or Shakespeare) in your own computers, notebooks, pen drives, etc.

And idea would be lets write a novel about X, that's the idea, the novel is made of words and sentences structured by the author to convey his idea, it took him materials, time and effort to write it.

Why is that different from making bricks?

After all the idea of a brick is millenia old, therefore shouldn't the materials and work that go into producing the actual brick be equally up for grabs?

I think the original 1710 Statute of Anne copyright term of 14 years, renewable for +14 years, was about right. A flat 20 year term as with Patents would be ok, but the clever thing with 14 + 14 was that the author could sell their rights, but still regain them on reversion at 14 years when they renewed the copyright.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
That's all fine and dandy but notice I said Author, not corporation owner.

As in limit the IP to the actual person that created something in regards to art (patents are a different beast and should be treated differently and apart).

Why isn't IP transferrable? Is it property or not? (It's not.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Imagine you wrote something really good and that becomes popular but there's no IP law. Here comes Disney and takes ALL of your IP to make movies without giving you a red cent and maybe not even mentioning you.

Then, because there's no IP law they print what you already published and sell it, with better art, then they hire some wageslave to write in your style new novels.

Sure, you could take theirs and print it too, but you can't produce new stuff with their levels of production (I mean the art, proofreading, etc.) or create movies, tv shows, etc to compete with them on those markets.

I already addressed this oft-repeated nightmare scenario above, but I'll try again. If you think I'm too dense, here's a career patent attorney answering the same nightmare scenario (less than 5 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWeUGU6SrYw

So the existing fanbase of the already-popular really good thing are going to run off as soon as Disney copy-pastes some art in and generates an assembly-line generic-brand version? What happened when Marvel took their really good popular comics and turned them into assembly-line garbage designed to be hated by the original audience?

Let's assume the original fanbase stays with the original author (because they would), and Disney builds a big new fanbase that likes the new soulless garbage, and makes lots of money from people who wouldn't have liked the original anyway: So?

Let's even assume the original author loses their whole fanbase to Disney. Again: So? Do they have some kind of right to their audience's preferences?

And you know, if it weren't for IP protectionism helping the Little Guys so much, all those classic Marvel artists and writers would still be at it, making more of the stuff their audience loved, with the characters and settings they enjoyed. Thanks to IP, it's all gone. You get what Marvel says you get!

But I understand your ideal is much more nuanced: we should instead get what Marvel says we get until all the relevant creative people die.

What an improvement! So a creator gets paid to make a new comic, and he loves working on it, and his small audience loves reading it, but the company cancels it and says "No, we're done with that. We need something new." Now we can wait until he dies to get some other schmuck's take on it! (No, Marvel is not going to sell any of their artist/writer creations back to them after they quit.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
The net result would be no one would publish shit unless they were being paid for handsomely by some megacorp.

Nope. Lots of artists already publish their work directly into the public domain while making a living at the same time. The software industry has already figured this out. All new software that anyone cares about (usually written and maintained by a single person, for fun) is committed directly into the public domain via the MIT license. Artists will eventually follow suit, regardless of whether IP law catches up with them.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Don't get me started with medical drugs because it's offtopic and a worst can of worms.

Why is it off-topic? There may be different legal categories of IP, but they all boil down to telling other people they're not allowed to do a thing (or even something similar to a thing) that someone else has already done.

If we're so worried about RPG PDF sellers and their right to benefit from their labor, then why wouldn't medical advancement be even more important to protect, using the same principles? The fact is: "Making something that someone else has already made" isn't a crime.

That's why we have the invented concept of "Intellectual Property"; if IP was really property, it would just be called "property", and stealing it would just be a regular existing crime called "theft". Not even the government considers the spread of information to be "theft". They call it "[commie BS] infringement".

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons.

If you're not an IP abolitionist now, you will be in six months. Check out the Stephan Kinsella talk I linked in my earlier post.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author.

Where does this right to profit from things come from?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

Patents are a joke. Did you know entertaining a cat with a laser is patented?

There is one legitimate reason to seek out a patent: to prevent a patent troll from doing it for you and criminalizing the business you started. Seeking to enforce the patent, though, just makes you a commie.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I used to think this way, but then I got over it. Whenever I publish a book, it'll be freely available digitally, right down to the source files and publishing toolchain, which will be hosted on GitHub, with instructions on how to produce the for-print PDF. I have no fears of losing any money to megacorps or Mega folders.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

You're on the right track; eventually you will find it ridiculous that a living author can legally bully you into giving them money or risking a lawsuit.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

Who has said they can't? The only people telling anyone they can't benefit from things are IP protectionists.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

Exactly.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud.

It's more of an infringement on your own reputation than anything else. This is what Amazon reviews are for, not courts.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Based.

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 06, 2021, 02:39:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

Sound reasoning.  If all creative works become free public domain, then all creators will be broke.  There will be much less incentive to create.

Exactly. Reducing the time of the IP/trademark on novels and related creative works sounds reasonable to me because the Rat Shack has pushed them beyond any reasonable limits IMHO.

But going all the way to the other extreme and giving none whatsoever?

The problem is that intellectual doesn't embody physical products like a house. If I hear you sing a song and then sing it myself. I haven't taken anything from you that is the equivalent of adverse possession of house. You still know the song, and you can still sing it.

The natural state of ideas is to spread, be used, and adapted. However many ideas whether it is a patent, copyright, or trademark require at a minimum an investment of time to realizes especially as cultures and societies grew more sophiscated and diverse. So it is a good policy to give a creator exclusive rights to their creations.

However nothing in human society exists in a vacuum. Except for a handful every ideas rests on the shoulder of those who came before. So any type of intellectual exclusivity should be limited in time. Patents confer the broadest type of monopoly so they are only limited to 20 years. Copyright only cover an expression of an idea so their duration is long as the base idea often can be expressed in different and novel was. Trademark are effectively indefinite but their use is to uniquely identify a product or a group of products. So they have to be in current use and the right enforced or the monopoly they confers ceases to exist.

Earlier it was asked how can writer do what musicians can do with performance. The answer is patronage. People pay a specific authors periodic fees to continue to write. With the rise of the internet and digital technology many prize authenticity and are willing to pay for it for something they like. With the efficiency of the internet and digital technology it is possible to make a go of this with only a couple of hundred patron contributing a small amount each month. And you don't even need that many to make it worthwhile if it is supplemental income done in the time one has for a hobby.

As for the future, the chances of Disney or any other multi-national influencing copyright is low. People are far more aware of the issue and far more passionate about it than they were when the last major revision occurred in the 90s. More importantly people are taking matters in their own hands by creating various types of shared or open creative content. There been nothing so far that has been as popular as Star Wars or Marvel, but give it time. Eventually an author or authors will come along that committed to open content and make something that is wildly popular.

Already there are cracks in the system where digital technology allow individual creators to challenge the status quo. Taylor Swift doesn't have the rights to much of her original recording but does have the right to the songs themselves. So she is in the midst of re-recording all her old albums to regain control of her creative catalog. As technology advances the ability to do this will continue to filter downwards if hasn't already.

Finally the legal system isn't totally stacked against those with money. In a fit of sanity Congress inserted a provision that allows authors to take back all the rights during a window of time opening 35 years laters. Steve Jackson recently used this to regain control over the stuff he did for the Fantasy Trip.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:41:48 PM
And idea would be lets write a novel about X, that's the idea, the novel is made of words and sentences structured by the author to convey his idea, it took him materials, time and effort to write it.

Why is that different from making bricks?

After all the idea of a brick is millenia old, therefore shouldn't the materials and work that go into producing the actual brick be equally up for grabs?

In practice, I support more limited copyright and patent similar to what you're saying, GeekyBugle.

However, I disagree that it is an inherent or natural right. If intellectual property is a natural right, why should it ever expire? If I build my house, I pass it on to my children, and they can pass it on to their children. It is a thing.

I consider Intellectual Property as a special social reward for certain creators, but not a natural right. Just because someone puts time and effort into coming up with something, that doesn't mean they necessarily control it. Sometimes, people can put time and effort into stuff and it isn't rewarded. Society can't guarantee that all time and effort is fairly rewarded - it can just make it possible. So if I spend time cleaning up my local public park or fixing up my rental unit, I won't necessarily be rewarded. People can be Good Samaritans and do work with no legal reward.