I'll ask you the same question. Show me a case in which an intellectual property was infringed where the defendent was charged with theft.
I'll wait.
Yes, I have studied property law, which is why I know that many theft statutes apply to intangible property. That seems to be the point where you're stuck. The problem with what you're asking for as far as people being "charged with theft" for copyright infringement is that the Copyright Act preempts such state law theft statutes. For example, the defendant in Crow v. Wainwright was convicted under a state theft statute. The state supreme court upheld the conviction, after which the case was appealed to the federal courts. The 11th Circuit held that the theft was really copyright infringement, so it reversed the conviction: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=720+F.2d+1224&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&case=1460316155 2739797984&scilh=0 But if you're looking for theft statutes that are still on the books for acts that are otherwise copyright infringement, I can point you to: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.031.000..HTM "Property" and "theft" aren't limited to tangible personal property, as you appear to think. Most, if not all, states have statutes for the theft of intangible property.
It's hard to respect an author for saying, "hey, look at what I made, come play in my world! but don't you dare think about touching it with your dirty hands!"
That's not hard for me to do.
Only a selfish child with a favorite toy is as fixated as IP maximalists are on property "rights" and ownership when it comes to culture and works of art.
I think that only a "selfish child" would rationalize appropriating the work-product of authors, without recompense and against the author's wishes/rights, under some inane theory that it's "a part of culture" so that makes it OK.
Hey, speaking of 'respecting the work of others', where's your respect for the work of the person writing/drawing the fanfic/fanpic? They put time and effort into their creation, just like the 'original' creator, yet you don't seem to care too much about their creativity, their creation, or their rights.
For the parts that are original (in the copyright law sense), I do care for their rights just as I do for any author. It's the infringing parts I'm not fond of.
They build their works on what came before, once they add their works into the tapestry of culture, it's sheer hypocrisy for them to then cry 'No one may build upon my creations, which were built upon that which was created before them!'
Of course that's true. But it's also true that new works are created all of the time that meet the originality requirement.
If someone doesn't want derivatives of their creations made, the solution is simple: Keep it to yourself. Don't publish the story, don't make public the painting or artwork or song, and you can maintain the iron-tight grip over your work that you so dearly desire.
No, I prefer that authors who want to share their works do so however they choose. I can want that at the same time that I want their rights to be respected by others. It's not an either-or. And it's certainly not true that I want an "iron-tight grip" over works for authors. It's true that I think some uses of those works should be determined by authors.
Of course, you don't bother actually thinking this through at all, in that property rights for scarce, rivalrous, physical goods are not the same thing as copyright.
On the contrary, I've given that fact great thought.
And right there is the strawman argument you were accused of making earlier. Nothing in this article talks about taking away authors' choices, it only encourages them to consider making other choices that may be of great benefit of them.
Did I say that OP wants those rights taken away? It's true that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that OP felt that way, but my comment explicitly mentioned what I perceive to be a lack of respect on OP's part for the wishes of authors.
The only issue is that copyright owners don't actually have that right. They have very specific rights granted to their intangible property by copyright statute. These rights are not the same as the rights granted to a property owner of a tangible property.
Copyright owners have the right of reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, and public performance/display, within limitations set forth by statute, such as the duration of copyright and fair use (among other limitations).
Nowhere do they have the right to "determine how they want their property to be used."
Those rights you listed (reproduction, distribution, etc.) are the rights to use that I'm talking about. If I own the copyright to Book X, I get to determine who can make reproductions of it, who can distribute it publicly, etc. I'm sorry if that was unclear. Those use-rights are what I was referring to.
As other people have pointed out, respect is earned, and is not a right. You can keep using tangible property terms, such as property use and theft, but they never apply to intangible goods.
From this comment, I assume you have never actually studied property law. Am I right?
Except for plagiarism, which is not what we are discussing here, fan fiction is a new work built in an existing (fictional) world. Why should someone building on the tales of Achilles be treated different from someone building on the tales of Harry Potter?
Because Rowling or whoever owns the copyright to the Harry Potter character may not like it. I respect the author's/proprietor's choice. I don't want to take it away.
Keeping with the "Tolkien" theme, I call this kind of thinking the "Gollum syndrome": my preciouss...
Look, I understand why many authors think that way. But once you have published anything, no matter how small (like this comment), it becomes part of the collective consciousness of humanity. Even if on a subconscious level, your work becomes part of the base upon which your readers will create their own new works. One can't compartmentalize their memory; whatever they have seen or heard, it has become tangled into their being.
I don't disagree. It becomes part of culture. But becoming part of culture doesn't mean the author should lose all rights in the work, IMO.
If that is the case, feel free to call the many loving fan artists of deviantArt, and those who view the fan art, thieving scum-of-the-earth pirates who don't know any better, and call for the website owners of deviantArt to be thrown in jail for mass piracy.
I save the "thieving scum-of-the-earth pirates" appellation for people who simply pirate works wholesale. Derivative uses are different, and I actually support broader fair use and personal use rights. But fan fiction is a closer call for me. I don't think those who write it are all terrible people, I just think that what the author wants matters too.
Ownership of expression is a euphemism for prior restraint.
All ownership involves the owner's right to administer the uses of the owned property to the exclusion of others. It's not prior restraint in the First Amendment meaning of the term, if that's what you mean. It's simply respecting the rights of owners to determine how they want their property to be used.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I don't see anything in your comment that would cease to let the author continue to make/turn a profit from "their" collective works , What I do see is putting an invisible lock on something the fans want , with those locks in place it becomes useless to anyone , If the work is dated and newer, brighter ideas come along ,basically wiping any worth to culture as a whole away.
I'm not sure why you're quoting the Constitution. Could you explain? My objection is to the notion that authors should have to permit fan fiction even if they don't like it. It's not only about what "the fans want." It's also about what the author wants. As it stands right now, authors have the choice to permit fan fiction if they want to. I take issue with OP's suggestion that authors shouldn't have that choice.
For-profit fan creativity is a huge opportunity, but creators are letting it go to waste because they're so anxious to protect their copyrights. It may seem counterintuitive, but letting other people make money from your intellectual property can add far more value than it costs—in some cases millions of dollars. ...
It's time for creators to let go of their old fears and begin to reap the rewards of the crowd. Indie creators can benefit from the added attention their fans' creativity draws to their work, while bestselling creators can take advantage of hits like 50 Shades to expand the borders of their franchise into new markets. Give it a try: turn your fans into business partners, and see what they can do for you.
Yes, authors may choose to permit fan fiction, and they may even benefit from it, but I disagree that there's anything wrong with "letting it go to waste because they're so anxious to protect their copyrights." The work is THEIR property, and they can do with it as they please. Whether they want people like you infringing on the fruits of their intellectual labors is THEIR choice. It's a shame you don't respect this decision on their part. One could easily list all of your property and think of ways that it could be put to uses that some deem to be better than the uses you put it to--even uses that don't interfere with your own uses and which make your property more valuable--but the fact remains that it's YOUR property and others don't get to make those calls for you. And we all respect your wishes to determine the uses of YOUR property. But when it's the work of others, you apparently don't have that same respect. It's a shame, really.
Yes, Mike refuses to take a definitive position on copyright. It's not so much that he won't answer me, it's that he won't take a position no matter who's asking. As he shows in that post, he has no trouble whatsoever giving us his opinion on criminal infringement. Yet, when it comes to civil infringement, he absolutely refuses to state his opinion. Do you want to turn these comments into that discussion again? I'm happy to talk about that, if you want. I'm sure Mike doesn't like it though, so you might consider that before answering. It's his dirty little secret.
If someone is not allowed to resell a device they purchased because its firmware is copyrighted, then copyright is infringing on the owner's property rights.
If that someone has not acquired the right to publicly distribute the work, then they have no right that is being infringed when they aren't allowed to publicly distribute that work. How can their right to distribute something be infringed if they never acquired the right to distribute that thing in the first place?
I don't see how antidirt can expect to be taken seriously when he keeps wrongfully claiming that copy protection laws are a natural right. They're not. He knows this and he's being dishonest about it. and every time someone kills his stupid claim the shills keep it dormant for a while before resurrecting it like a zomby. Until he can be honest enough to admit the obvious fact that copy protection laws are a product of government, and not a natural right, he can't reasonably expect to be taken seriously. What a joke.
Are your privacy rights, which are the product of the government, not real? Is the First Amendment not real, even though it's the product of the government? I know you read a Wikipedia article or two and are thus an expert, so I look forward to your explanation. ELI5.
It destroys them. My right to copy as I please is a property right.
How do you have any property rights in a work that didn't exist before someone else created it?
I have the right to modify my property the way I see fit based on the configuration of the property of others. It's a natural right. I never agreed not to copy someone else or 'pirate' their product. It's an act of government that imposes these restrictions on my property rights telling me what I may or may not do with my property.
You never agreed to not throw rocks at my windshield, yet your doing so violates my property rights, not yours.
The whole idea that you should have to 'buy' a license in the first place is what's misleading/misdirecting. I shouldn't have to buy a license, it's my right to freely copy as I please. Anything contrary to that is an artificial act of government abridging my property rights to do what I want with my property.
Who says you have to buy a license? You can choose to buy a license or not. But the reality is that if you choose to buy a license, you've bought a license.
Though I'm sure you will still dishonestly claim that copy protection laws are natural rights despite the fact that they don't meet the definition and despite the fact that even many of the sources you cite disagree with you.
What sources disagree with me? Please be specific.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll wait.
Yes, I have studied property law, which is why I know that many theft statutes apply to intangible property. That seems to be the point where you're stuck. The problem with what you're asking for as far as people being "charged with theft" for copyright infringement is that the Copyright Act preempts such state law theft statutes. For example, the defendant in Crow v. Wainwright was convicted under a state theft statute. The state supreme court upheld the conviction, after which the case was appealed to the federal courts. The 11th Circuit held that the theft was really copyright infringement, so it reversed the conviction: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=720+F.2d+1224&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&case=1460316155 2739797984&scilh=0 But if you're looking for theft statutes that are still on the books for acts that are otherwise copyright infringement, I can point you to: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.031.000..HTM "Property" and "theft" aren't limited to tangible personal property, as you appear to think. Most, if not all, states have statutes for the theft of intangible property.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, no. Your advice has a consistent history of straddling between horrible and bullshit.
And, yet, I'm here in the comments having a productive conversation with several other people, while you're doing nothing but trolling me. Funny that.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh look, personal insults. My suggestion would be to contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not hard for me to do.
Only a selfish child with a favorite toy is as fixated as IP maximalists are on property "rights" and ownership when it comes to culture and works of art.
I think that only a "selfish child" would rationalize appropriating the work-product of authors, without recompense and against the author's wishes/rights, under some inane theory that it's "a part of culture" so that makes it OK.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re:
For the parts that are original (in the copyright law sense), I do care for their rights just as I do for any author. It's the infringing parts I'm not fond of.
They build their works on what came before, once they add their works into the tapestry of culture, it's sheer hypocrisy for them to then cry 'No one may build upon my creations, which were built upon that which was created before them!'
Of course that's true. But it's also true that new works are created all of the time that meet the originality requirement.
If someone doesn't want derivatives of their creations made, the solution is simple: Keep it to yourself. Don't publish the story, don't make public the painting or artwork or song, and you can maintain the iron-tight grip over your work that you so dearly desire.
No, I prefer that authors who want to share their works do so however they choose. I can want that at the same time that I want their rights to be respected by others. It's not an either-or. And it's certainly not true that I want an "iron-tight grip" over works for authors. It's true that I think some uses of those works should be determined by authors.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re:
On the contrary, I've given that fact great thought.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did I say that OP wants those rights taken away? It's true that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that OP felt that way, but my comment explicitly mentioned what I perceive to be a lack of respect on OP's part for the wishes of authors.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, you're just playing dumb, so you already knew that.
Exactly which claim of mine was false? I'm not playing dumb. You just aren't being clear. Thanks.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright owners have the right of reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, and public performance/display, within limitations set forth by statute, such as the duration of copyright and fair use (among other limitations).
Nowhere do they have the right to "determine how they want their property to be used."
Those rights you listed (reproduction, distribution, etc.) are the rights to use that I'm talking about. If I own the copyright to Book X, I get to determine who can make reproductions of it, who can distribute it publicly, etc. I'm sorry if that was unclear. Those use-rights are what I was referring to.
As other people have pointed out, respect is earned, and is not a right. You can keep using tangible property terms, such as property use and theft, but they never apply to intangible goods.
From this comment, I assume you have never actually studied property law. Am I right?
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re:
Because Rowling or whoever owns the copyright to the Harry Potter character may not like it. I respect the author's/proprietor's choice. I don't want to take it away.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re:
Look, I understand why many authors think that way. But once you have published anything, no matter how small (like this comment), it becomes part of the collective consciousness of humanity. Even if on a subconscious level, your work becomes part of the base upon which your readers will create their own new works. One can't compartmentalize their memory; whatever they have seen or heard, it has become tangled into their being.
I don't disagree. It becomes part of culture. But becoming part of culture doesn't mean the author should lose all rights in the work, IMO.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re:
I save the "thieving scum-of-the-earth pirates" appellation for people who simply pirate works wholesale. Derivative uses are different, and I actually support broader fair use and personal use rights. But fan fiction is a closer call for me. I don't think those who write it are all terrible people, I just think that what the author wants matters too.
Ownership of expression is a euphemism for prior restraint.
All ownership involves the owner's right to administer the uses of the owned property to the exclusion of others. It's not prior restraint in the First Amendment meaning of the term, if that's what you mean. It's simply respecting the rights of owners to determine how they want their property to be used.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re:
I don't see anything in your comment that would cease to let the author continue to make/turn a profit from "their" collective works , What I do see is putting an invisible lock on something the fans want , with those locks in place it becomes useless to anyone , If the work is dated and newer, brighter ideas come along ,basically wiping any worth to culture as a whole away.
I'm not sure why you're quoting the Constitution. Could you explain? My objection is to the notion that authors should have to permit fan fiction even if they don't like it. It's not only about what "the fans want." It's also about what the author wants. As it stands right now, authors have the choice to permit fan fiction if they want to. I take issue with OP's suggestion that authors shouldn't have that choice.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re:
Could you explain why you think it's a straw man?
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
It's time for creators to let go of their old fears and begin to reap the rewards of the crowd. Indie creators can benefit from the added attention their fans' creativity draws to their work, while bestselling creators can take advantage of hits like 50 Shades to expand the borders of their franchise into new markets. Give it a try: turn your fans into business partners, and see what they can do for you.
Yes, authors may choose to permit fan fiction, and they may even benefit from it, but I disagree that there's anything wrong with "letting it go to waste because they're so anxious to protect their copyrights." The work is THEIR property, and they can do with it as they please. Whether they want people like you infringing on the fruits of their intellectual labors is THEIR choice. It's a shame you don't respect this decision on their part. One could easily list all of your property and think of ways that it could be put to uses that some deem to be better than the uses you put it to--even uses that don't interfere with your own uses and which make your property more valuable--but the fact remains that it's YOUR property and others don't get to make those calls for you. And we all respect your wishes to determine the uses of YOUR property. But when it's the work of others, you apparently don't have that same respect. It's a shame, really.
On the post: Alice Ruling Kills Another Patent Dead, As Lumen View Patent Troll Drops Appeal
On the post: New Bill Designed To Stop Bogus Copyright Claims From Stopping You From Selling What You Own
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Bill Designed To Stop Bogus Copyright Claims From Stopping You From Selling What You Own
Re: Re:
If that someone has not acquired the right to publicly distribute the work, then they have no right that is being infringed when they aren't allowed to publicly distribute that work. How can their right to distribute something be infringed if they never acquired the right to distribute that thing in the first place?
On the post: New Bill Designed To Stop Bogus Copyright Claims From Stopping You From Selling What You Own
Re: Re: Re:
Are your privacy rights, which are the product of the government, not real? Is the First Amendment not real, even though it's the product of the government? I know you read a Wikipedia article or two and are thus an expert, so I look forward to your explanation. ELI5.
On the post: New Bill Designed To Stop Bogus Copyright Claims From Stopping You From Selling What You Own
Re: Re:
How do you have any property rights in a work that didn't exist before someone else created it?
I have the right to modify my property the way I see fit based on the configuration of the property of others. It's a natural right. I never agreed not to copy someone else or 'pirate' their product. It's an act of government that imposes these restrictions on my property rights telling me what I may or may not do with my property.
You never agreed to not throw rocks at my windshield, yet your doing so violates my property rights, not yours.
The whole idea that you should have to 'buy' a license in the first place is what's misleading/misdirecting. I shouldn't have to buy a license, it's my right to freely copy as I please. Anything contrary to that is an artificial act of government abridging my property rights to do what I want with my property.
Who says you have to buy a license? You can choose to buy a license or not. But the reality is that if you choose to buy a license, you've bought a license.
Though I'm sure you will still dishonestly claim that copy protection laws are natural rights despite the fact that they don't meet the definition and despite the fact that even many of the sources you cite disagree with you.
What sources disagree with me? Please be specific.
Next >>