Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Compendium PDF

Doc_Klueless

Doors and Corners
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! :p ) 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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Doc_Klueless

Doors and Corners
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

Book-Friend
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! :p ) 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

Hero
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! :p ) 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

Doors and Corners
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

Legend
Publisher
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

Hero
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

Legend
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

Book-Friend
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

Legend
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.
 

Horwath

Hero
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.

I did not say that their work was pitiful as a whole.

I said that the work is pitiful in comparison to generating income 100 years after artist dies and how many years he/she lives after the making of the artwork.

I.E. singers;

I am huge fan of Iron Maiden and I was on 5 concerts(would be on alot more if they had more close by). But I do not own any CDs of theirs. Because I hold no value of CDs over live concerts.
I can listen for free on Youtube or if they come on some radio station.
I value their work they put in on concerts and the mood and atmosphere that is there.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Yeah, copyright is a good tool to help artists benefit from their work, but the system has been mangled and broken so that public domain is being robbed.

Copyright is not necessary for creativity, as evidenced by thousands of years of human history prior to the 18th century...
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
"We should make a compedium of the UA articles. In fact here, I did it."

Two years passes, nobody seems to care much about the UA compedium, updating stops due to lack of interest, the topic fades into the background.

All of a sudden...thread necromancy for no apparent reason by a new user...people replying to posts from two years ago....COPYRIGHT ISSUES! GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

?
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
"We should make a compedium of the UA articles. In fact here, I did it."

Two years passes, nobody seems to care much about the UA compedium, updating stops due to lack of interest, the topic fades into the background.

All of a sudden...thread necromancy for no apparent reason by a new user...people replying to posts from two years ago....COPYRIGHT ISSUES! GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

?
The Internet is ForeverTM
 

Gradine

Final Form (she/they)
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.

Again, copyright for fiction is a lot more recent than fiction itself. It's demonstrably false that people wouldn't make up stories if copyright didn't exist, because that describes the vast majority of human civilization.

I also think it's naive as hell to think money is the only thing that motivates creative output, but that's just me.

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.

Oh yes, now this on the other hand, sure. People should be able to make a living on their artistic endeavors for a good long while. I'm not even sure I'd argue against "life of the author" (and maybe even a plus one for the family because dying in this day and age is stupidly expensive). Shakespeare got to get paid, son (and in a time where he didn't have copyright protections, either! Imagine that!)

But it's also, again, inarguable that copyright does stifle creativity. I mean, I guess you can argue against it, but you'd be wrong. Why?

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.

Because there is nothing new under the sun. Vast swathes of our popular culture were not the product of genesis but rather of synthesis. Stories don't spring forth fully formed from the forehead of Zeus. They are, by and large, the product of other stories. The Disney Canon. Most of Shakespeare's works. Star Wars.

See, no one's arguing you should be able to copy a work whole cloth and start selling it yourself as your own work. But where copyright gets overzealous is in the way stories that exist within it can be used in the process of synthesizing new works. The vast universe of Star Wars or Star Trek inspire you to tell your own story, even with your own unique characters, personal contributions to the worldbuilding? Sucks to your assmar, Piggy, that's "fan fiction", and you're not allowed to profit from your creative output, because it shares one particular aspect with somebody else's. File all the serial numbers off, make a few tweaks to it? Nope, you're still liable bub.

Even if you could make a really good case, and even if the people suing you believe you, they still have to sue you. That's how current copyright law really screws with creative development. Why do they have to take your ass to court? Because otherwise they could be seen as not actively protecting their copyright, and then poof, it disappears. It's why you can't name your video game Scrolls without Bethesda sending a C&D. It's why you don't really see laser swords in a lot of things, in spite of laser swords being objectively awesome. And here's the thing... even fighting a completely baseless and frivolous lawsuit is expensive as heck. So even if Joe the Plumber has never even heard of a Star War before, if his debut novel has laser swords and telekinesis in it, he's going to get a letter from Disney, and odds are, he's not going to be able to afford to fight it.

And this kind of thing is happening all the damn time. And if you think that's good for creativity? For the enrichment of popular culture? Well, you're wrong.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
LOL. Alright, Mistwell! I'll stop poking the bear with a stick. Pinky Swear!

Oh I don't care if you do. Poke away. In fact copyright bothers me in the same sense democracy bothers me. I know it doesn't work great, and it's not working as intended, but it's still better than any other system I've seen discussed. But if you can find the better answer, you should. And discussing it is one way to find that better answer. I just thought it was a curious turn of events.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Oh I don't care if you do. Poke away. In fact copyright bothers me in the same sense democracy bothers me. I know it doesn't work great, and it's not working as intended, but it's still better than any other system I've seen discussed. But if you can find the better answer, you should. And discussing it is one way to find that better answer. I just thought it was a curious turn of events.

I think copyright was working fine, up until the extent began getting pushed out. I find it interesting that the same didn't happen with patent, and certainly creativity in engineering and science has not been stalled.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I think copyright was working fine, up until the extent began getting pushed out. I find it interesting that the same didn't happen with patent, and certainly creativity in engineering and science has not been stalled.

The problem with copyright comes from the Berne Convention, and competition between member nations to beat each other as a place to attract creators. So Berne set the copyright date to Life of the Author Plus 50 Years, but allowed member nations to increase that time frame. The US increased it, then the EU increased more than the US, and so on, until the EU went to 70 years and the US matched them at 70 years in response.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The problem with copyright comes from the Berne Convention, and competition between member nations to beat each other as a place to attract creators. So Berne set the copyright date to Life of the Author Plus 50 Years, but allowed member nations to increase that time frame. The US increased it, then the EU increased more than the US, and so on, until the EU went to 70 years and the US matched them at 70 years in response.

Nothing good ever came from Berne...
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top