Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Compendium PDF

[Doc_Klueless]

But if I make a chair, it's my chair and my family's chair forever. I can will it to my child who can do the same in time and so on and so on. Your access to that chair does not impact your life. My poem or, in my case, my short story is my story and, hopefully, my daughter's story. (My "been writing it forever" novel doesn't count! ) That benefits me and mine. I don't care about you and yours when it comes to such because you are not detrimentally impacted by not having its free use or access.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Ya know, I don't think we're gonna make an impact on each other. So I'll stop belaboring the point. Too many other interesting threads!

Cheer!

 

[Parmandur]

But if I make a chair, it's my chair and my family's chair forever. I can will it to my child who can do the same in time and so on and so on. Your access to that chair does not impact your life. My poem or, in my case, my short story is my story and, hopefully, my daughter's story. (My "been writing it forever" novel doesn't count! ) That benefits me and mine. I don't care about you and yours when it comes to such because you are not detrimentally impacted by not having its free use or access.

So, up until very recently, creators had no legal claim on their work: if you published a story in Shakespeare's time, Shakespeare could produce a fan fiction play without repercussion. Artists in this time usually were self-sufficient or had a patron, or were producing an experience that people would pay for (a finely made physical book, or a performance). The actual ideas, concepts, characters, etc. we're always considered common property. Now, a system was introduced to allow an artist to profit for a good time off of his work, similar to patent laws. If copyright still had the timeframe of patent, people wouldn't complain, because people would be free to publish their fan fiction into the free market to compete without monopolistic claims ofngiant corporationa.

For added irony, the main driver of the changing laws was Disney, a company built on fan fiction of public domain intellectual property.

 

[Horwath]

But if I make a chair, it's my chair and my family's chair forever. I can will it to my child who can do the same in time and so on and so on. Your access to that chair does not impact your life. My poem or, in my case, my short story is my story and, hopefully, my daughter's story. (My "been writing it forever" novel doesn't count! ) That benefits me and mine. I don't care about you and yours when it comes to such because you are not detrimentally impacted by not having its free use or access.

main debate here is: Is intellectual property a "real" property. It is only property if we agreed on it. Any property falls under consensus of the society.
It's just easier with physical property as you are instantly damaged if said "chair" is taken from you and with intellectual property you are only theoretically damaged.

And many people say that if you want to make profit/wage you have to constantly work for it.

Same if from creators point of view. If I write a book for 3 years and do nothing else, I get no profit out of it and I expect profit to come from it after I finish it and put it for sale(publish).

We can all agree on that. Work and effort has to be rewarded. Otherwise economy breaks down.

But main question is: should you get a lifelong reward/wage and your descendants for 100 years after you die for pitiful 3 years of work?

 

[Doc_Klueless]

But main question is: should you get a lifelong reward/wage and your descendants for 100 years after you die for pitiful 3 years of work?

Um, yes.

Why wouldn't I? Why must I expect the thing that I took 3 years of sacrifice to create to inevitably be used to enrich others who didn't want to take the 3 years of sacrifice to make up some of their own stuff? I shouldn't be under any obligation, even 20 years down the line, to give the fruit of my labor to some lazy-ass stranger who doesn't want to sacrifice time, effort and comfort as this Hypothetical 3-year Me has.

If the 3 years of work is so "pitiful," why aren't you (general, non-specific) doing it rather than trying to profit off of my work? It's MINE. I made it. My withholding it from your free use in no way encroaches on your ability to live a full life. You wanna use my work? Pay me/mine or get permission. Forever and ever. Amen.

(Remember that we're talking about copyrights of fictional entertainment.)

 

[Sacrosanct]

Copyright doesn’t stifle creativity, it encourages it. Lack of protection is what stifles it because people just steal your stuff rather than create their own. With copyright, you have to be creative with your own ideas.

It’s pretty simple. If a person creates something that has value and others want, they should be the beneficiary for as long as it has value. There’s a whole lot of selfish entitlement for someone to argue they should profit off of someone else’s work after X amount of time. Create your own stuff.

And phrases like “pitiful work” and “if you can’t keep cranking out equally popular stuff, then don’t be a writer” I find full of contempt, and tells me a lot about the person making them. Especially if the person never had success themselves. Jealousy. And greed.

 

[Horwath]

Um, yes.

Why wouldn't I? Why must I expect the thing that I took 3 years of sacrifice to create to inevitably be used to enrich others who didn't want to take the 3 years of sacrifice to make up some of their own stuff? I shouldn't be under any obligation, even 20 years down the line, to give the fruit of my labor to some lazy-ass stranger who doesn't want to sacrifice time, effort and comfort as this Hypothetical 3-year Me has.

If the 3 years of work is so "pitiful," why aren't you (general, non-specific) doing it rather than trying to profit off of my work? It's MINE. I made it. My withholding it from your free use in no way encroaches on your ability to live a full life. You wanna use my work? Pay me/mine or get permission. Forever and ever. Amen.

(Remember that we're talking about copyrights of fictional entertainment.)

That is the debate. You/me/whoever made it.

But what work did you do after it? None. Nothing. No effort at all from creators side after the initial one. No costs, no overhead, no time consumed.

But, I am not for removing copyright completely. I am just for setting it to equal playing field as patent. Both are creative works.
And to be honest patents are worth quite a bit more as on average they require a lot more expenses, especially if there is a team working on inventing new technology.

Without copyrights there would be a lot less artists(or maybe not) and quite less new inventions.

I am just saying that current copyright is too damn long IMHO.

 

[Hussar]

Um, yes.

Why wouldn't I? Why must I expect the thing that I took 3 years of sacrifice to create to inevitably be used to enrich others who didn't want to take the 3 years of sacrifice to make up some of their own stuff? I shouldn't be under any obligation, even 20 years down the line, to give the fruit of my labor to some lazy-ass stranger who doesn't want to sacrifice time, effort and comfort as this Hypothetical 3-year Me has.

If the 3 years of work is so "pitiful," why aren't you (general, non-specific) doing it rather than trying to profit off of my work? It's MINE. I made it. My withholding it from your free use in no way encroaches on your ability to live a full life. You wanna use my work? Pay me/mine or get permission. Forever and ever. Amen.

(Remember that we're talking about copyrights of fictional entertainment.)

But, in the case of the chair, after you die, that chair no longer belongs to you. You cannot own anything. You're dead. Now, your children (or you children's children) made no sacrifice whatsoever for that thing that you created. Why should they have ownership over it? Note, Copyright is always life of the author - I don't think anyone is debating that it should be shorter than that. I know that I'm not.

But, why should your grandchildren continue to have sole ownership? What's the justification there?

And, then it gets stickier when ownership is passed to a corporation. That's the issue with Disney.

 

[Parmandur]

But, in the case of the chair, after you die, that chair no longer belongs to you. You cannot own anything. You're dead. Now, your children (or you children's children) made no sacrifice whatsoever for that thing that you created. Why should they have ownership over it? Note, Copyright is always life of the author - I don't think anyone is debating that it should be shorter than that. I know that I'm not.

But, why should your grandchildren continue to have sole ownership? What's the justification there?

And, then it gets stickier when ownership is passed to a corporation. That's the issue with Disney.

Actually, when copyright was introduced, it was not life of author: expanding it past a couple decades is a very recent development.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, when copyright was introduced, it was not life of author: expanding it past a couple decades is a very recent development.

Sorry, yes, got a bit carried away with typing. What I meant to say is that copyright today is always the life of the author. However, when it starts getting to be life+70, that's a bit... extreme. Again, the larger issue is when corporations own copyrights. After all, corporations don't die.