Pirate Party UK

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm sure that I'm being pedantic but just to be clear, Lovecraft actively encouraged others to employ his mythos. In this case it worked in his favour - the more authors used it, the more attention that would come his way as its originator.

That's a great point, and needs to be pointed out more in this thread: people have a right to give away their own creations to whatever degree they are comfortable with.

 

[Shapeshifter]

Now that I think about it, I don't really see why music or text should cost anything. I like the creative commons.
I can only make claims because I'm not in the position musicians and authors are, but if I were a musician, I'd give my music away for free. I'd certainly want to get paid for playing on a stage or other "actual work", but making music is usually a hobby more than a real job.

Think of it as the same like free software. People around the world are coding hours after hours on a huge amount of software they just give away for free. People supply patches, people hang out on IRC and forums just helping each other out. Well everyone could just start wanting money for code. But free software has been proven to be quite a nice concept. Businesses can make money through support and distribution, and through application of this free software in services to other businesses. But the code itself is free.

Is this such a bad analogy to free music and text?...

The part that is free:
Software: The code
Music: The music itself
Text: The text itself

The part of it to make money with:
Software: Offering services and support to people incapable of deploying the software
Music: Offering live concerts, pressing CDs, making covers
Text: Printing books... uhm...*

Clearly, no author can live of the interest they earn from the publisher. I doubt this can work well for books... But for music, I actually think it should work. And all those who don't give concerts should get a "real" job anyway. I kinda doubt one really has to sit at the lake and get stoned all day just to make decent music.

Remember, all the coders that code for free also have a real job. This is also has a nice impact on quality. Only people that like to code, and want to code are coding free software. If only people were making music who really like doing it just for the heck of it, and not for the money, we'd get rid of a lot of commercial crap music as well.

But then again, I don't live the life of a musician so I might be very wrong.


---
* actually, I wonder if it was possible offering books for free online and only earn money through ads... Could work.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

But then again, I don't live the life of a musician so I might be very wrong.

You know, if you WERE a musician, and you wanted to try it... more power to you, and good luck! The thing that I object to is the idea that we can or should take that choice away from people. It is easy for other people to say "musicians shouldn't be able to make me pay for their work" when they go to their own job and demand a paycheck for work. Easy, but inconsistent.

 

[acerba]

I'm sure that I'm being pedantic but just to be clear, Lovecraft actively encouraged others to employ his mythos. In this case it worked in his favour - the more authors used it, the more attention that would come his way as its originator.

That's a great point, and needs to be pointed out more in this thread: people have a right to give away their own creations to whatever degree they are comfortable with.

If I directly copy/paste Harry Potter and try to sell it, then Rowling should be able to block me, because at that point I'm not creating anything of my own. I wouldn't be making my own story with my own interpretation of the world and characters. I'd be plagiarizing.

But, if I rewrite Harry Potter. With my own language, my own interpretations of the world, then it should be seen no differently than if I had rewritten Faust, Hamlet, or Robin Hood. If I write a book set in the same universe as Harry Potter, but follows the life and story of someone else, then it should be published whether Rowling likes my book or not.

Copyright law should exist, but it needs to allow for derivative works, otherwise we're denying ourselves a wealth of artistic opportunity.

Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don't bother concealing your thievery,celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from,it's where you take them to."

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If I directly copy/paste Harry Potter and try to sell it, then Rowling should be able to block me, because at that point I'm not creating anything of my own. I wouldn't be making my own story with my own interpretation of the world and characters. I'd be plagiarizing.

But, if I rewrite Harry Potter. With my own language, my own interpretations of the world, then it should be seen no differently than if I had rewritten Faust, Hamlet, or Robin Hood. If I write a book set in the same universe as Harry Potter, but follows the life and story of someone else, then it should be published whether Rowling likes my book or not.

Copyright law should exist, but it needs to allow for derivative works, otherwise we're denying ourselves a wealth of artistic opportunity.

You're probably wrong on this one, both from a legal AND creative standpoint... depending on how much you are deriving, and how much you are... diverging? That might be the word for it. You can't just "rewrite Harry Potter" without being a plagiarist. Rowling has every right to prevent you from using her characters and specific locations. She made those things up, and you don't have ANY right to use those, from a legal standpoint. If nothing else, you're trying to gain an unfair advantage for your work by latching onto Rowling's popularity.

Further, you have no right to use her creations from a creative standpoint. If you are actually BEING creative, you don't need to steal from her. If you want to tell a different story, with a different main character, then you should create your own universe... and if you can't, that tells us what we need to know about how creative you really are, doesn't it? Dozens or possibly hundreds of authors have managed to write "teenage wizards growing up" stories without violating copyright. If you can't do it, that's a sign that maybe you shouldn't be writing.

Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don't bother concealing your thievery,celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from,it's where you take them to."

Look at that last part... Jim Jarmusch disagrees with you. "It's not where you take things from,it's where you take them to." If you are just using someone else's work unchanged, then you aren't taking the ideas anywhere. The point he is making is the old canard about there only seven or so possible plots. By "stealing" Jarmusch clearly means that there are a limited number ideas, and that you will absolutely be influenced by the things you experience. Then, and here's the part you are glossing over and ignoring, you take those bigger ideas and change them by passing them through the filter of your own imagination.

And that means coming up with an interpretation of the idea that is far enough away from someone else's ideas that you don't need to swipe their specific characters and locations. If you like Harry Potter, but want to tell a different story... then TELL A DIFFERENT STORY. Make the setting and characters match YOUR story, not Rowling's. You can and will use other works as a jumping off point, but if you want to be creative you actually have to jump, not dangle one toe off the side.

Have I mixed enough metaphors yet?

 

[acerba]

You can't just "rewrite Harry Potter" without being a plagiarist.

I disagree. Disney, Mel Brooks, and others have all rewritten the original story of Robin Hood with their own spin on things. These people aren't plagiarists, they changed the story of Robin Hood by passing the it through the filter of their own imaginations. Similarly, a person could do the same thing with Harry Potter.

In the end, the only difference between a Harry Potter fanfic and Robin Hood Remake #43435 is that copyright law prevents the author of the former from making money off their creation.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I disagree. Disney, Mel Brooks, and others have all rewritten the original story of Robin Hood with their own spin on things. These people aren't plagiarists, they changed the story of Robin Hood by passing the it through the filter of their own imaginations. Similarly, a person could do the same thing with Harry Potter.

In the end, the only difference between a Harry Potter fanfic and Robin Hood Remake #43435 is that copyright law prevents the author of the former from making money off their creation.

Sounds completely fair and just to me, unless you can find the first guy that created Robin Hood. Why shouldn't people have a right to profits gained from their creation? Because you can't come up with something creative on your own? That's not a good enough reason.

 

[acerba]

Sounds completely fair and just to me, unless you can find the first guy that created Robin Hood. Why shouldn't people have a right to profits gained from their creation? Because you can't come up with something creative on your own? That's not a good enough reason.

They are coming up with something creative on their own.

Even though they borrow a setting and characters, they still make changes if only because they are looking at events from a different perspective from the original author and they're bound to have a different writing style. Wicked is no less creative because the setting and characters are derived from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. West Side Story is no less creative than Romeo and Juliet. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is no less creative than Hamlet. Thomas Mann's Faust is no less creative than Goethe's which is no less creative than the versions than came before that.

 

[richi1173]

My two cents on this issue.

Stealing is stealing, but making it sound like I just committed grand theft auto is a little bit far fetched.

We have to consider also if its really detrimental to the holders of the copyright license. Evidence shows that piracy is not extremely detrimental to the copyright holders when it involves monetary loss, or at least not the way that you think.

Piracy is a form of mass free-advertising. However, what you are showing the consumer is the actual product itself with no gimmicks attached. You are allowing them to inspect and use the finished product, and if they think its a piece of crap, they will not buy it. Many people that pirate specific games, music, and movies and do not end up buying the final product is because they think the product is a massive piece of crap or just too average to merit a buy.

Spore is an example. EA, in their own right, screwed up their launch with the news that SecuROM was being implemented, which left many consumers extremely angry. People who pirated the game noticed this and they noted that the game was too shallow and not very engaging, just as reviewers had noticed when they officially reviewed the game. It turned out to be a little above average for the majority but it was complicated by the DRM issue and consumers felt that they ended up with an average product.

The people who pirated the game and ended up not buying it is because they did not like it. In essence, it exposed the game for what it was, and the sales figures reflected it - a little above average.

However, the game did well, selling by September 30 a million copies.

To clarify, people who pirate the game but do not buy it are people who will not buy your product anyways. If they do buy it, they will think its a piece of crap and demand a refund. So, why count them as monetary loss.

 

[acerba]

To clarify, people who pirate the game but do not buy it are people who will not buy your product anyways. If they do buy it, they will think its a piece of crap and demand a refund. So, why count them as monetary loss.

Last I checked stores didn't refund games that had been opened, so the person who bought the game but dislikes it is supporting the makers of the product whether they like it or not.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I can only make claims because I'm not in the position musicians and authors are, but if I were a musician, I'd give my music away for free. I'd certainly want to get paid for playing on a stage or other "actual work", but making music is usually a hobby more than a real job.

As a practicing musician, I completely disagree. You're free to be idealistic and give away your music, if you like - that doesn't mean your personal ethics should apply to all musicians. I work hard to compose and record good music.

I'm unsure why playing onstage is "actual work" but actually writing and recording the music is not. A live gig might last two hours with 15 songs or so. How long do you think it takes in a studio to record just ONE song? Ignoring the time spent writing and rehearsing it, of course. On good form, I can record one song in a day, from morning till night - but I have complete control over all the parts. Recording in a studio can take a long time. If you tot up the man-hours accumulated over the recording of a 10-track album and compare it to the length of a gig, you can probably see the difference.

Music is a hobby to a lot of people - in that they haven't got to a position where they can live off it. Technically my music is a hobby, but my intent is as far from hobby as you could possibly imagine. I work an average job so I can pay rent and continue making music. If I got some kind of revenue from music, I'd be extremely unhappy to have it taken from me by idealists like yourself, who for some reason don't equate making music with "actual work" and therefore think it's ok to steal it.

And all those who don't give concerts should get a "real" job anyway. I kinda doubt one really has to sit at the lake and get stoned all day just to make decent music.

You've betrayed your real opinion of musicians quite neatly. Your perception is about 30 years out of date. You don't write or record or perform music and you have a certain contempt for people that do, or want to, so you're not really qualified to make sweeping statements about how music should be free in essence. It's a service offered by professionals, and if they want to give it away free then fine - often that's the best way to get started. But in the long run? No.

But then again, I don't live the life of a musician so I might be very wrong.

Yes, yes you are.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

This is a much too complicated matter to be simplified with basic metaphors like that. I wonder if we still would have bakeries and restaurants if we used the same logic on them. Flour, butter, milk, yeast and spices aren't copyrighted, right, but cinnamon buns should be?

But then you were happy to simplify it with the notion that we can't possess a series of chords. In some senses, you can't possess the chords themselves - there's a chord progression that's been used in everything from punk songs to the soundtracks of Sunshine and LotR. If I recorded those chords, as I have done, it would be hard to sue me for it.

However, music is seldom as simple as just chords played on one instrument. If I found me a choir and recorded Am, F, C and G at the same tempo and arrangement as the music played after Gandalf's fall in LotR 1, that could be construed as plagiarism. The arrangements, melodies, instrumentations, harmonies, cadences etc in a piece of music are as important as the chords they follow. A lot of it is down to intent. You don't consider music as something you can possess, so you might be happy to just copy someone else's. That'd get you fucked.

This reality will make it very plausible to accidentally come up with something already thought of by someone else, without your knowledge of the former material. Are you guilty of breaching copyright then? If a court of law finds your stuff too similar to the copyright owners, then you will lose!

There's plenty of songs that use the same chords - youtube is full of videos where people combine all the songs in one to show how ubiquitous some progressions are. But in those cases, the arrangement and lyrics are what provide the difference. Most blues is roughly the same - three chords. It's the playing, feel and lyrics that identify each one.

 

[GegoXAREN]

My 2.5 cents:
from the American PP:

We seek to change global legislation to facilitate the emerging information society, characterized by diversity and openness. This is done by requiring an increased respect for citizens, their privacy, and the reform of rights ownership laws.

what we wast to build is a society where knowledge is free, not just free-ish", what world do we wast to give to the next generation? a perfect police state? where all media is controlled?
what we want is a place were we can flourish, and not be in fear that some government or company is monitoring our every move, what we say, to whom we say it, and so on. is that the place that you want? if so, be my guest do not vote for a brighter future, vote our way in to "a perfect utopia" where you have no rights.


this is a poem i made some time ago:

Dystopia; Eutopia

The perfect eutopia is the worst of all dystopia's

There is pace in this world;
all live in phear;
there is "no" crime;
all are monitored;
everything is perfect;
no one is safe;
everything is safe;
this is the world we said we would not create.......

Welcome to Eutopia;
Welcome to Dystopia.

[both together] this was the world we wanted?

Edit:
a lil video:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

My 2.5 cents:

what we wast to build is a society where knowledge is free, not just free-ish", what world do we wast to give to the next generation? a perfect police state? where all media is controlled?
what we want is a place were we can flourish, and not be in fear that some government or company is monitoring our every move, what we say, to whom we say it, and so on. is that the place that you want? if so, be my guest do not vote for a brighter future, vote our way in to "a perfect utopia" where you have no rights.

What it appears that you actually want to build is a society where the uncreative and unethical steal the creative work of others. What's next, legalized shoplifting?

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

What it appears that you actually want to build is a society where the uncreative and unethical steal the creative work of others. What's next, legalized shoplifting?

I imagine that, in the future, people will not WANT to shoplift - but will still want to download other people's artistry for free. Quite a specific mental shift.

 

[CosmicSpork]

It kind of feels like some people think creative work has no value and should be treated as such....

I don't know where human kind would be now if it weren't for our ability to use our imagination and create from it. Whether it be through music, art, writing or film... it all has value and the effort that has gone into it has value. As a creative person myself, I may never build a house, or develop the cure for cancer, but maybe I will inspire someone to somehow.

I deserve recognition as much as anyone else for the work and effort I've put into something and I don't see why just anyone should have the right to take something I have used my talents to make and use it how they wish.

I apologise if this is out of context and I've missed the point.

 

[Ozymandyus]

what we wast to build is a society where knowledge is free, not just free-ish", what world do we wast to give to the next generation? a perfect police state? where all media is controlled?
what we want is a place were we can flourish, and not be in fear that some government or company is monitoring our every move, what we say, to whom we say it, and so on. is that the place that you want? if so, be my guest do not vote for a brighter future, vote our way in to "a perfect utopia" where you have no rights.

It's hilarious to me that if you want people to be rewarded for their work, you are trying to create a police state where everyone is watched all the time. But if you want to be able to take what you want without paying for it(at least, anything creative or software based), you are trying to create a 'brighter future' where everyone will 'flourish' and shit rainbows.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It kind of feels like some people think creative work has no value and should be treated as such....

Or, in some strange way, so valuable that no one should have to pay for it... which seems incredibly illogical and backwards, but there you go. You notice that it generally isn't creative people who are going out of their way to claim that no one should have to pay for information and creative work. Some very few choose to give their creative output away, but often that's part of a business strategy to find an alternate way to get paid, not a rejection of the idea that they should get paid at all.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It's hilarious to me that if you want people to be rewarded for their work, you are trying to create a police state where everyone is watched all the time. But if you want to be able to take what you want without paying for it(at least, anything creative or software based), you are trying to create a 'brighter future' where everyone will 'flourish' and shit rainbows.

I guess it is a bright future where creative people don't bother to create anything because they have to work in other fields in order to not starve to death? Or will creative people be literally enslaved and forced to work for nothing, instead of just being stolen from as these folks currently advocate?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I imagine that, in the future, people will not WANT to shoplift - but will still want to download other people's artistry for free. Quite a specific mental shift.

Well... they won't have to shoplift. They will probably want to vote that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, should have a credit card that the government pays the bill on, and the people who actually do stuff should carry the lazy fucks who don't. Next thing you know, they claim that everyone has a right to food, and the easiest way to get there is to stop paying farmers to grow it.