Not so; I'm not deliberately pretending to misunderstand you. I'm saying that losing copyright protection is effectively losing profitability: I'm saying that the logical consequence of your 20 year requirement is that King will no longer profit from his older books. I love his work, but if Amazon is offering it for $0 as one of their PD offerings, then I'm 'buying' it for free from Amazon. If King is selling it for $1, that's still more than free, and he can keep it.
But, collectively, we the public have lost OUR copyright protections to the benefit of King and other authors.
What is the justification for taking the historic rights of the public away and granting them to King and other authors?
Why, then, should it belong to the public-at-large after he's dead?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... (long post, see above) ...
We have different opinions on individual v. group rights. I favor individual rights unless there is an over riding public need. We are not going to agree, but, as in everything, ymmv.
I think some of the slamming people are putting on her Facebook page is taking things a bit far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I just thought of something:
Since Stephen King was used as an example...
Carrie was published in 1973. At that time, copyright was for a term of 56 years (double the original 14 years + renewed 14 years).
It has been implied that reducing copyright terms would provide a disincentive to create, yet, history shows us that, prior to the 1976 extension, authors were perfectly willing to create works that only received 56 years of protection.
The first revision to our copyright law, the first extension, was to extend copyright to 28 years plus a 14 year renewal - largely the result of lobbying by Noah Webster, and sponsored by his brother, Daniel Webster, so people couldn't copy his dictionary.
So, the root of copyright extension is a desire to control (and profit from) the spread of knowledge, supported by corrupt politicians. Nifty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of the slamming people are putting on her Facebook page is taking things a bit far.
Eh, I can understand it.
Some of those people are the ones that actually created the works she's plagiarizing, and, playing by the rules, they're not allowed to do what she's done, nor are they (or the current copyright holders) receiving any credit.
It's a situation she's brought upon herself, and I can't really sympathize with her at all, especially after she's threatened legal action against these folks.
Yeah I know, I know... but there are ways and there are ways. Given I can be the snarkiest person I know I reckon if I am saying "Hey guys, not cool" then it's probably a sign; at the end of the day how much fat loot do we reckon shes made off the sales of her 'well known and widely read' novels? Three bucks fifty and a Happy Meal?
Everyone threatens lawyers at fifty paces, especially when the first hate appears, but I wonder if there could have been a more seemly outcome had the IP owners just contacted her and said "Hey, glad you liked the names, but hey you appear to have copied exhibit X Y and Z".
That said, people can do what they want, these are only my observations.
Take Tolkien. He's dead, the rights live on in his estate. Peter Jackson had to go through all sorts of work to be able to adapt it. As well he should have, its important that the core Middle-Earth creator be identified as Tolkien (who also liberally talks about his own influences)
Peter Jackson didn't make a trilogy of movies and say "I made all this up" Even when a director straight out copies ONE scene from another work, they always straight out say it was a homage to whoever made it up.
So there is a system to protect creativity, but she blatantly tried to weasel around it. Not even that, she just ignored it because she's too lazy and uncreative to weasel.
The problem with that example is, Peter Jackson was contractually obligated to declare the origin of the work, because it's still under copyright, and he was required to license it to make his movies.
Right now, under our current copyright law, there's no requirement (which I explained earlier as "right of paternity") to credit original sources - all of that is contractual between copyright holders and licensees.
But public domain works? There's no contract there. The whole work is freely available for anyone to do with as they please, including simply re-printing and slapping one's own name on the work, as if they were the original author.
This is just yet another example of how copyright law isn't about protecting the individual author's interest. Plagiarism itself is (although unethical) completely legal, because we don't have that right of paternity protection.
As much as I support the public domain, and am appalled by the political abuse of it in the form of current copyright terms, I do believe that, at least in this very limited area, there needs to be this small form of protection. Nothing that inhibits or discourages use, but a simple credit to the original author/creator.
Ask your elected officials why that's not part of the next copyright extension they sell their corporate benefactors.
I've flagged the top post for IP infringement so that someone comes to take a look at that Pathfinder Goblin picture.
Getting slightly back on track:
Here's the goblin on one of her book covers. This is, by her statement, "a commissioned and paid for piece of artwork" that she "had nothing whatsoever to do with it's creation other than to advise the artist on the storyline of several of the shorts in the anthology."
Self-flagged for staff to check.
Here's the goblin on one of her book covers. This is, by her statement, "a commissioned and paid for piece of artwork" that she "had nothing whatsoever to do with it's creation other than to advise the artist on the storyline of several of the shorts in the anthology."
Self-flagged for staff to check.
That's not entirely unheard of. Your artist rips off a source material you're not familiar with, so you never notice.
Man, this person has the worst luck when it comes to violating intellectual property, huh? It's like she's being chased by the IP Imps. She should call her next world something unique, like, say, Krynn. I'm pretty sure that one hasn't been used yet.
The problem with that example is, Peter Jackson was contractually obligated to declare the origin of the work, because it's still under copyright, and he was required to license it to make his movies.
Right now, under our current copyright law, there's no requirement (which I explained earlier as "right of paternity") to credit original sources - all of that is contractual between copyright holders and licensees.
But public domain works? There's no contract there. The whole work is freely available for anyone to do with as they please, including simply re-printing and slapping one's own name on the work, as if they were the original author.
This is just yet another example of how copyright law isn't about protecting the individual author's interest. Plagiarism itself is (although unethical) completely legal, because we don't have that right of paternity protection.
As much as I support the public domain, and am appalled by the political abuse of it in the form of current copyright terms, I do believe that, at least in this very limited area, there needs to be this small form of protection. Nothing that inhibits or discourages use, but a simple credit to the original author/creator.
Ask your elected officials why that's not part of the next copyright extension they sell their corporate benefactors.
Ah ok, thanks for the explanation.
Well yeah, there should be a way to keep this from happening. I'm writing my congressperson
Post #63 has links to the examples, if you flag that one (just up the page a bit).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did the same. Someone needs to teach this woman a hard lesson that she can't steal the works of other and then try to pass them off as her own.
And we should demand the return of the buck fifty she has made off selling her hotly demanded novels too!
I did the same. Someone needs to teach this woman a hard lesson that she can't steal the works of other and then try to pass them off as her own.And we should demand the return of the buck fifty she has made off selling her hotly demanded novels too!
Maybe they should put her on a ship and transport her to some country at the far end of the world as punishment, I cant think of place worse than tropical Queensland... ;-)
I am surprised though, its not hard to draw your own world map, and rip off real world countries and give them names that give the reader a hint as to what culture you are ripping off.
When you look at the map of the Known World it is North America.
It does show a very poor understanding of IP and an incredible amount of laziness on her part. It wouldn't be hard to fix - redraw the map change the names and replace them in the book.
8D I am just surprised at the gravitas and vitriol being brought to bear against some hack obscure writer that basically no one has ever heard of who appears to be not much more than some nerdy chick from QLD, and here we have supposedly top notch writers (creators of the IP no less! along with Hickman!) engaging in lengthy diatribe.
Whilst I find it highly ridiculous and find their approach to be really heavy handed and actually making me a little embarrassed not only for her, but for people who have been there done that and proven their writing chops so should know better than to stoop to this, but I have to also admit I find the untempered nerdrage to be hysterically funny and a bit of guilty reading pleasure. I alternate the comments with the voices of Sheldon Cooper and the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons - I could read it all day!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, it's all in reaction to how she handled it, and her popularity or financial success from this endeavor really has no bearing on the situation.
Had she not engaged in a continuous backpedal of excuses ranging from "It's all original, just coincidence!" to "It must have been inspired by my gaming!" to "It's not infringement, it's homage!" all the while threatening legal action against people and maintaining that she's done nothing wrong, I seriously doubt it would have gone on that far.
No sympathy, myself.
So some socially awkward chick acted poorly when confronted by angry grognards? Did anyone think that this was going to go down any other way?
As I say, much ado about nothing, and only good for providing cheap titilating fodder for the entertainment of others. She's a nobody with nothing and no claim to fame, the likes of Hickman have reputations that gain nothing from this and only stand to come off badly.
Isn't that Hickman's modus operandi, though?
I wasn't actually aware of that until now to be honest.
I had just assumed that he was a relatively successful fantasy writer making a comfortable living off long standing works.
Still, I just can't understand... Why the hell she did that? It's not laziness, because assembling a few vowels and consonants that would sound equally well should not take much more effort than reusing obscure one. The map in the link is so crappy she could hand draw anything equal well or bad.
I just think she didn't really think.
She strikes me as one of those typical awkward nerdy flakes that when you met them at age 14 said "I want to be a writer" or some other profession that basically capitalised on their slightly flaky 'artistic talents' (ie something they felt wasn't going to be hard work) and they normally never take it as far as she did. I reckon half the girls I met at goth clubs etc fancied themselves as poets, writers, artists etc and to their credit most had at least a mediocre level of amateur talent (of course all the guys reckoned they were the next Trent Reznor/Marilyn Manson to be fair).
What I do find surprising though is that she actually showed at least the initiative of actually WRITING said promised work, and then publishing it in any form, as opposed to a bunch of poorly constructed excerpts poorly written on looseleaf lined A4 notepaper, usually in pencil.
The only thing that lady is missing to fill out the whole cliche is a tarot deck (I'm assuming she already owns a corset).
Well, after Hickman's ghastly and misplaced desperate defense of the pathetic pile of s@$% called the Comics code, I would say it would take a lot to see his views as relevant. Death gate was good, though.
Oh really? He started jumping sharks? :(
Ambushed - A very young Slade and Wulfstan are enjoying a peaceful camping trip in Vestland's nearby forests when they suddenly find themselves caught in a net trap. Who has set the trap and why? More importantly is can the two inexperienced boys escape their captors?
(Totally not Wulfgar)
New Beginnings - Find out how and why the great minotaur Tares came to be a warrior priest of Ilmater in Vestland, far from his home in The Isles Of Dread.
(Totally not THE Isles of... oh stuff it)
well...coming from a science background plagiarism is about the worst sin you can commit, and I suspect most fiction writers feel the same way. Also, if you don't defend all instances of copyright theft, even if it's from a self publishing, not very sucessful author, other people might see that as a sign of weakness and more people will use your IP. So I think the witch hunt is a bit justified.
I think there's a smidge of a difference between Science and fiction writers though - I know which one is dealing in the greater works of human significance.
I also suspect the witch hunt was just a fit of nerdrage, where polite conversation could really have been applied instead. I am sure Paizo, for example, would simply send her a few polite notes about the Goblin, provide samples of what has been 'adopted' and allowed her to back out gracefully.
Always give people a dignified out first, well that's my way of thinking anyhow.
Shifty, I don't disagree with you about nerdrage and posting on her Facebook page, but from what I understand she was given a dignified out first, and claimed it was all just some wacky coincidence.
My experience is with self publishing min-comics, but just because I've never made enough to cover the booth fees at a convention (sad but true) doesn't mean I can use other people's IP with impunity.
And if she had said "yes, I plagiarized your stuff, sorry, won't happen again", that would constitute admission of guilt in any court. I think I can understand why she didn't "take the dignified out". I think you can too. Further, if the IP holder wants to keep their IP, they have to show that they have defended their IP.
This is one of the central issues that is wrong with intellectual property law, it not only allows people to behave like asses, it mandates it.
Another is that the terms are far too long. The price of the protected period for copyright was that at the end of this period, the works were to enter the public domain. This has not happened since 1928, if I am correct. The reasoning goes that the author should have the right to the texts for his/her entire lifetime. However, so as not to encourage murder to free up stuff, they wanted a period after that too. It is usually put as "it is important to those inheriting". Well, we all get that, don't we? If someone flips burgers, makes people's hair, invest people's money, or counsels grieving people, everybody keeps getting money from that for life plus a further few decades "for those inheriting"? There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to this, so: Make it a flat period of time.
Which brings us to the term. Patents were seen as vital to humanity, and awarded only a short twenty years. Copyright was seen as frivolous and unnecessary, and given far, far longer. This was in the nineteenth century, a time when invention was seen as paramount to humanity, and a time when life flowed far slower than today. The fact of the matter today is that a vanishingly small number of books have a chance to sell at all two years after their first printing. Inventions are very specialized things today, and revolutionary new insights have all but disappeared in favour of minor incremental improvements. I think it is a very open question whether texts or inventions shape our lives more today. Thus, I think perhaps ten years could be a good period for both patents and copyright.
IP laws are said to protect the creator against theft. That may be so. However, we read daily about huge companies acquiring "defensive patents" that they have no intention of using to protect against infringement suits. We VERY rarely hear anything about a poor author successfully fighting off a company through an infringement case. Certainly on the patent side, there are huge numbers of stories of inventors ruined by trying to defend their rights in court. The entire sector is stacked massively in favour of rich companies stepping on people who can't claim the rights they are said to have. Only when IP is held by a big company is it "protected". So the companies love it? Well, some do. Many others consider it a dangerous and loathsome arena that makes them unable to develop the things they would like for fear of getting too close to a patent that could maybe be interpreted as being infringed.
IP laws have gone from promoting creation to stifling it. There are better ways.
Oh really? He started jumping sharks? :(
The guy jumped the shark as early as September of 2002 (if not earlier) by ranting about the Book of Vile Darkness preview in Dragon Magazine #300 being "terrorism" in his mailbox.
I quote the first line of his rant entitled "D20 Terrorism":
Yesterday, I found a terrorist attack in my mailbox.
Further, if the IP holder wants to keep their IP, they have to show that they have defended their IP.
This is one of the central issues that is wrong with intellectual property law, it not only allows people to behave like asses, it mandates it.
That's only for trademark. Copyright does not have any kind of "active defense or lose your copyright" bits about it. Trademark does.
I strongly agree with much/most of the rest of your post.
Shifty, I don't disagree with you about nerdrage and posting on her Facebook page, but from what I understand she was given a dignified out first, and claimed it was all just some wacky coincidence.
Exactly.
Shifty, illustrate the nerdrage or failure to provide a dignified out in this post:
Dear Tracey, I noticed that your Witchcraft Wars books are based upon material that is copyrighted and owned by another company. You seem to have based your works on the World of Mystara, which is a published fantasy setting for the D&D Game, currently copyrighted and trademarked by Wizards of the Coast, based in Renton Wa.
Like · · June 13 at 5:11am near Burlington, WI
Based on the time stamps, I believe to be the first post Bruce Heard made to address this with Tracey Alley.
Again, based on the time stamps, her response appears to be the first response to Bruce's comments:
No Bruce the work is all original, any similarities are purely coincidental. I'd never even heard of the World of Mystara before you mentioned it.
Like · Reply · June 13 at 4:08pm
Even subsequent replies were still polite. They degenerated a bit over time, but ultimately, none of this started as any kind of "witch hunt" or "nerdrage" by "angry grognards". Your repeated attempts at implying (or outright accusing) such is ridiculous.
Alley was provided the "dignified out" that you're championing. She threw it back in the face of those who provided it.
Brian: Exactly. Trademark does. And as you then quote, the first, dignified letter specifically points out that Mystara is indeed both copyrighted AND trademarked. When discussing IP law, there is this tendency to say "but you are talking about copyright, this is about patents and you don't know anything worth saying". See now why I specifically chose to discuss intellectual property, not copyright? In any case, thank you for your support.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, if it weren't for nerd rage, some of wouldn't have any rage at all. :P
Oh yes... Who wrote something matters today. A plagiarist hack can sell a story about an outcast drow elf who adventures on the surface of a fantasy world yadda yadda... But few would see it as canon, or relevant. Some might choose to read such a book on a lazy hammock day in the summer, of course. I can tell you that for me, I am far more interestedin the original vision, and I never read anything for leisure without knowing the author. That iswhy I am not interested in the add on part of the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I believe a large part of the concept of genre fiction lies in IP law. I read an article on IP and movies. Turns out that if you are doing a noir movie, you can defend yourself in IP court proceedings by claiming that the scene in question is a "scene a faire", a scene necessary to make a movie OF THE CHOSEN GENRE. See why genres might be a good idea when you consider defending yourself in court? Or otherwise put, if you work outside of genres, you have less defense. Thus... The more or less laughably stereotypical movies wesee today may be a product of this. Except for the truly big companies, of course. They can make original movies (not that they do), but everyone else is stuck hashing out cliches warmed over a hundred times.
Next up, if I feel like tackling it: The joys of making documentaries!
Brian: Exactly. Trademark does. And as you then quote, the first, dignified letter specifically points out that Mystara is indeed both copyrighted AND trademarked.
True - she is using place names that may or may not be trademarked. I wasn't really thinking of that, as the bigger commotion seems to be over copyright.
When discussing IP law, there is this tendency to say "but you are talking about copyright, this is about patents and you don't know anything worth saying". See now why I specifically chose to discuss intellectual property, not copyright? In any case, thank you for your support.
I do understand where you're coming from, I just find it inaccurate to state that you risk losing your IP if you don't defend it, when that seems to be limited strictly to trademark, rather than IP in general (unless there's other aspects that have the "defend it or lose it" clause?).
My claim was that IP law mandates asshattery. It may be that there is a novel somewhere that doesn't feature trademarked stuff, then that may not be covered by my claim.
I think it is funny that people are accusing others of nerd raging over IP copyright infringement while they themselves nerd rage over being anti-IP copyright. Nerd rage for everybody!
People should be free to nerd rage about anything they like, naturally. Except about other people's nerd rage.
I think it is funny that people are accusing others of nerd raging over IP copyright infringement while they themselves nerd rage over being anti-IP copyright. Nerd rage for everybody!
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm far from being anti-copyright.
I strongly support copyright, and I strongly object to infringement of copyright.
I'm opposed to effectively unlimited terms on copyright.
I'm opposed to the attempted erosion of right of first sale.
I'm opposed to the attempted erosion of fair use.
I'm opposed to outright contradiction in existing copyright law (i.e. how one electronic copy in a person's possession can be deemed "legal" and how another, identical copy in that same person's possession can be deemed "illegal").
I'm opposed to the criminalization of copyright at the behest of lobbyists and large corporations, and believe that this should return to being a civil matter.
I'm opposed to ridiculous abuses of copyright by all of the above - there's a problem with our society when an industry lobbying organization is allowed to accompany armed law enforcement agents on raids of little old ladies for illegal downloading and distribution when those little old ladies don't even own computers or have internet connectivity (not to mention, there's a problem with armed law enforcement agents raiding ANYONE, let alone little old ladies, because they illegally downloaded some music or movies).
I'm opposed to ridiculous abuses of copyright by all of the above - there's a problem with our society when an industry lobbying organization misrepresents facts and claims that all infringement represents "lost sales" even though there's no evidence to support that (and plenty of evidence to counter that).
But copyright, at it's core? I strongly support copyright, and what it is supposed to be (and once was).
My claim was that IP law mandates asshattery. It may be that there is a novel somewhere that doesn't feature trademarked stuff, then that may not be covered by my claim.
Gotcha.
Couple of questions
The person who creates the teleporter and realizes the world isnt ready for it. If so they shouldnt apply for a patent. Who takes it? the Government? Me? XYZ corporation?
I buy a house? In 30 years do i still own it? What if its a factory or farm.
What if its a secret recipe such as Mcdonalds fries? Public domain after 30 and therefore i could start my own fastfood place and use that recipe?
How about a brand name. Could another country make Ford cars or Budweiser beer?
Sorry going to disagree with almost everthing you say on this topic. In fact i will go a step further and agree that shows like American Idol need and continue to need to get permission to use songs from artists and have to pay for those rights and addition if the artist doesnt agree with its use then the prevent it. Same with radio stations, etc.
Any research that patents hinder medical research or innovation? How does a novel have anything to do with this?
or Budweiser beer?
I admit it. I laughed. :)
Wicked cool: You SERIOUSLY don't understand the difference between a secret recipe and an IP-protected one? Like... uh... seriously? No further questions.
Mcdonalds patented the way their fries are frozen look it up and tried to patent how sandwiches are made.
I understand there is a difference between a trademark, patent and copyright. They are however in many ways similiar .In my opinion it goes to refuting the argument.
In my opinion, your view that the specifics of owning a house is covered by intellectual property law says quite a lot.