Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Without copyright, I could take apart J.K Rowling's billion dollar Harry Potter empire by simply republishing and selling all the works myself, without compensation to Ms. Rowling.

She probably would have sold a few copies before you'd be able to do that; and maybe you could produce a slightly modified version that would be better.

It's worth noting that some of the best works of mankind were produced when no copyright was in place, so the argument that associates copyright protections with content creation is weak at best.

It's also worth noting that the continuous extension of copyright protection would effectively hamper creation. Derivative works are authored all the time. Most of what Disney ever produced is derived from popular classics from the 18th / 19th centuries (I remember that in "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame", the original author, Victor Hugo, isn't even credited).

I think it's wrong to frame the debate as "copyright versus no copyright at all"; it would be more useful to discuss copyright length. But what has been happening thus far is that copyright proponents have cried wolf, advocated for longer and longer copyright protections, and stronger and meaner tools of enforcement, AND IT WORKED.

And there we are, discussing SOPA, or having to live with HADOPI (crazy French law voted last year).

It's only fair that reasonable people who think shorter copyright terms would be desirable, and SOPA should never have been drafted, become less reasonable, in order to be heard.

I think that's what "zero copyright" advocates are doing; and maybe they have a case. Would a society with zero copyright be "radically different"? Let's see. Would "most people oppose those changes"? Let's ask them!

We need to frighten the MPAA just as the MPAA has been frightening everyone. "Stop pushing or lose it all" is a start.

From a speech on a copyright extension law, 1841

>Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesmen of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrims Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich, for the advantage of the greatgrandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom make nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/opposingcopyrightexte...

Just some comments:

> She probably would have sold a few copies before you'd be able to do that; and maybe you could produce a slightly modified version that would be better.

I don't even know what "better" means in the context of works of art. In any case it's about money: You would see it justified to cash in on someone else's work after she "sold some copies"? Also this remembers me of the common practice of the ripoff: "hendrix' greatest solo's": not mentioning that they were recorded by john doe .

> It's worth noting that some of the best works of mankind were produced when no copyright was in place, so the argument that associates copyright protections with content creation is weak at best.

It is not weak for that reason. Currently works which are commonly copyrighted nowadays are reproduced very easily: lossless copying, printing, electronic editing etc. Try that with the sistine chapel. You would have to clone the Borgias first. Quoting is indeed very common in art but it does not compare to copying. I think that the circumstances are not comparable.

> Derivative works are authored all the time.

Yes. See above. But selling Harry Potter with some changed scenes is a ripoff and not a derivative work.

> Most of what Disney ever produced is derived from popular classics from the 18th / 19th centuries (I remember that in "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame", the original author, Victor Hugo, isn't even credited)

Completely agree. Disney is indeed fishy what concerns his copyrights based on other's efforts. But honestly: when and why should you be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs?

> You would see it justified to cash in on someone else's work after she "sold some copies"?

In fact the answer to the example of Harry Potter should be that if copyright didn't exist, then it would be hard to sell any copy. Maybe some people would be able to sell printed copies, or better copies, or from a manufacturer approved by the author, etc. -- but most (electronic) copies would be available for free.

The question is: would it be bad? You seem to think that it would be morally bad; I'm not sure what morals have to do with it. It would be legal.

Would it be economically bad? I'm not sure either. In general, contrary to what people seem to believe, the economy benefits from cheaper goods.

But the larger point is that works of the mind belong to the public. They used to be in the public domain by default. Copyright is something that is cut from the property of the general public, and given to someone as an incentive to produce more original work.

The public should make sure they're getting their money's worth when granting copyright extensions. And, as it is obvious this is not the case, we should be demanding copyright reduction.

When you want ten bucks, ask for a million. When you want a shorter copyright length, ask for zero.

> But honestly: when and why should you be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs?

When the copyright expires is both the when & why. Same as Disney did when they cashed in on the original story by the Brothers Grimm.

Granted, I don't expect the copyright to expire any time soon when they can retroactively extend it.

How about in the case of "better quality mugs"? Trivial examples can often reveal important points, when examined closely. What if Disney Mugs, Inc, a solely-owned subsidiary of Giant Immoral MegaCorp, made very poor quality mugs, ones where the handles broke off? If you infringed copyright, and made unbreakable mugs, lots of parents and children would be very grateful.

... or toys with less lead in them... ;-)

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/16/toys-product-safety-biz-com...

Sure, there's a million ways to make better quality or more desirable goods. That's why the monopoly part of copyrights is undesirable from a consumer's standpoint. Goods of lower quality command higher prices when they're copyrighted or patented.

> But honestly: when and why should you be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs?

I think your question is backwards; it puts the burden of proof on the wrong side. Freedom is not what needs justification; rather, restrictions on freedom need justification.

A better question would be, "When and why should you not be able to cash in on coffee mugs showing Disney's rendering of the seven dwarfs?" And if no adequate justification is found for restricting freedoms, then they ought not to be restricted.

I read far more fiction produced with zero expectation of financial return than 'traditional' fiction. Sure most of it is terrible, but so are most books. When Harry Potter fan fiction outpaces the actual published books by 1,000's to 1 all it takes is a sane ranking system to find something interesting to read. If the cost of abolishing copy-write on fiction books is no fiction book would be published in any form then I would find that perfectly acceptable, because I know there are plenty of viable alternatives.

So, while I think you can make a case for copy-write it's not necessary and at the extremes it's clearly harmful. Just think of how many great movies would not have been produced if if Shakespeare's plays where still under protected. You don't get to see Pride and Prejudice and Zombies in a world of unlimited copy-write. (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594743347/ref=asc_df_1594743347184...)

PS: I think a 5 year copy-write length for movies, TV shows and video games is a perfectly acceptable, but I don't think they need copy-write protection either.

> You would see it justified to cash in on someone else's work after she "sold some copies"?

If I wanted to pay for her books at all, I would make sure to buy them from her, not some other random dude, who might have "improved" the story.

A lot of the people who buy Nike, Fila, Adidas etc. Would never wear a fake product, regardless of the quality. They want the real deal beacuse it is expensive. Even if the copy is made in the same factory.

By the way, J.K. Rowling explicitly allowed fan fiction from her works. I can't help but cite Eliezer Yudkowsky's Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, which I enjoy even more than the original story. I'd be sorry to learn it has to stop because of copyright.

http://hpmor.com/

This is one of the few really reasonable comments I've seen about this issue. Most people are taking very extreme positions on this. It makes sense that they take such positions to be heard in the face of such radical opposition but here, amongst ourselves, why can't we just say that copyright has some merits to it. It isn't perfect but no copyright at all wouldn't be good. We can't be going around deciding that people in certain professions (musicians, visual artists, programmers) should no longer have any rights to their work and need to find another way to make money.

People will stop sharing their creations. I give away some open source stuff but I'd like to reserve the rights to some of my work for at least some reasonable period of time. People will always release great things for free but some people will either stop releasing or have less time or motivation to create these great things if copyright went away. This shouldn't be a choice between one or the other. Both choices put more people at a disadvantage than simply scaling back copyright would.

How about this, we all know government is broken. So do we get rid of it and become anarchists? Anarchists would say yes but the rest of us wouldn't. A better solution would be to address the issues causing the problem rather than simply getting rid of the thing that has a problem. You don't kill yourself to get over the flu. You don't stop eating completely because your fat. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's keep copyright but modify it to benefit the most people.

Anti-copyright proponents would like us to think they are doing things "for the people". I say they're doing it for themselves. When you and all your friends think a certain way it's easy to think everyone else feels the same. Let's remember that "the people" are more than just consumers and ant-copyright-friendly creators. They're indie developers making awesome stuff we love, they're working at startups we drool over, and yeah, they work for the evil corporation too but are we really going to deny them everything they ask for out of spite? A good solution would work for most of the people most of the time (even the people trying to screw us but oh well). It isn't extreme or black and white and it takes into account that a creator's rights aren't any less important than a consumer's.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com