Should Intellectual Property exist?

[Valka D'Ur]

I will however note that part of the reason copyright developed when and where it did is the devlopment of the printing industry, which created the problem of mass-produced copies in the first place; that had of course never been an issue in the day of handwritten manuscripts where it would often take almost as long to copy a book as it did to write it.

Way back when (c. 1986 or 1987), I took some University of Ithra courses. Ithra is the SCA version of "university" in which people can take an amazing variety of classes on various aspects of medieval life from fighting and armoring to cooking, more kinds of sewing and embroidery than I'd ever have guessed existed, and the "chivalry & courtesy" class included how to use various items and layers of your clothing to flirt during dances.

The class relevant to the above post is calligraphy. That's one of the basic Ithra courses that most people take, along with basic heraldry and dancing. Even though we used modern calligraphy tools (no real feathers, thankyouverymuch; I bought new pens, nibs, and ink from a stationery store), producing a correctly-formed word is a challenge at first. Then you're handed a sentence that uses every letter of the alphabet. Then you get to try a short poem. All the while, you're concentrating on keeping the nib at the correct angle so the letters come out right and you use the right amount of ink.

My hands hurt by the end of the session. But the payoff was when Baron Edward Ross (our instructor) came by to inspect my work and said, "This is good, have you thought of becoming a scribe?"

That was high praise. Scribes are in short supply, when you consider that (at least back then; current policies may have changed in the 25 years since I was last active) every time someone is granted an award, they're supposed to get both a promissory scroll and a huge formal one.

I'm not sure whatever happened to my promissory. It's a one-page standard size proclamation that I had been granted an Award of Arms, that means I'm on the lower rung of nobility and can use the title of "Lady". It also entitles me to display my heraldic device on anything from something I own (as a means of identification) to a formal banner to display at court.

A scribe who has practiced regularly can produce a one-page document that isn't that fancy without too much time and fuss. But I never did get my big scroll, simply because by that time the backlog was years long. Those large scrolls are the super-fancy ones with illumination on them (some people just specialize in illumination rather than do the whole thing).

I could have commissioned someone to create it for me, but that cost $$$. If I'd taken Baron Edward Ross up on his suggestion, I could have made a tiny dent in the backlog of scrolls owed to people - tiny, because to do it right took months.

I never did become a scribe in the formal sense, but there were a few occasions when I'd do some calligraphed menus for the feasts.

One other thing I'll note about calligraphy: When you go to the effort to do it well, it has a side effect of helping you to improve your own everyday, mundane handwriting. My handwriting had been ruined in college due to years of hasty note-taking and jotting things down really fast while the instructor was talking. Calligraphy helped get it back under control and readable again.

Generally, if a company hold full copyrights to a work, it is because that work was created as work-for-hire on their behalf by people they hired and directed to create that specific work, not because they purchased the entire copyright of the work.

As in "house names" for various series? What comes immediately to mind are "Carolyn Keene" and "Franklin W. Dixon" (Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys series, respectively), and "Peter Danielson". It was a surprise to learn that there was no real "Peter Danielson" who wrote the Children of the Lion series. It was actually the work of four different authors, though there was one of them who wrote the first dozen or so. It does explain the radical change in focus and style of the last three books of the series.

Far more common, when a work is created by an individual creator not working for hire, is that individual rights that make up the copyright will be negotiated separately. The right of publishing in one language, the right of publishing in another language, the right to make a theatrical adaptation, the right to make a video game adaptation, the right to make a televisual adaptation, the right to make a cinematic adaptation, etc. Moreover, beneath those rights there remain the most fundamental right of the author: the right to create further works derived from the original (ie, sequels, prequels, midquels, companion series, etc), and the right to modify the original (write a modified second edition, etc). Sales of those rights, particularly in the same. So, it will be really rare that an artist retain no right based on their copyright.

Every so often, Robert Silverberg will mention in his email group that one or another of his books will now be available in such-and-such a language. Yes, there are people who are completists who will buy his books in a language they can't even read. Mind you, it's good for the readers of that language to be introduced to Silverberg if they haven't already read his books in English.

The other work that I'm reminded of is The Handmaid's Tale. The same people have the rights to both the 1990 movie and the TV series. This explains why there are some scenes that are so similar, down to identical dialogue (that may not necessarily be in the novel). Most of the people I interact with on TrekBBS or YT regarding this series don't even know there was a movie adaptation in 1990, so they remain unaware of the identical dialogue.

 

[Crezth]

I mean, you’re using the abuse by the film industry of people who DO NOT have copyright protection (because they do work for hire, essentially; and also because copyright is at its heart a concept that was coined for work with a limited number of creators ; subdividing copyright into 1/200th of copyright between all the people involved in a film would be wildly impractical) as evidence that copyright does not protect people. Which is pretty meaningless. And the fact that copyright does not protect them does not imply that they would be better off if it didn't exist.

There are philosophical connections between copyright and the strike, but nothing being discussed in the context of the strike is illustrative of the workings of copyright, because copyright is not meant to apply to the people striking.

Arguably this exactly is why there is a strike, because it's "not meant to apply to them." Whether it would be impractical is besides the matter (wasn't the purpose to protect creators? Why should that change if there are 10,000 of them, willing to share credit?), and anyway, it isn't impractical for media companies to send out residual checks for 17 cents every month, to the hundreds of creators on the residual take. Like you're oddly insistent that writers and the world of books and novels are entitled to a different form of copyright protection or profit sharing than people who work "for hire." Well, this was exactly why I brought up the point before that artists actually aren't free to create under this system. And now I'm outlining that artists are, in fact, beggared and presently striking about the situation with their compensation. So the question being raised is this: If copyright is so great for creators, why are creators striking because of the profits they don't get?

As best as I know (and I know a very fair amount) the question of copyright and AI art is actually far from settled, And legal opinions are far from unanimous in the matter, so saying copyright is powerless in the matter is at best premature. Even if the law as currently written fails to address a new problem - and it is new - that could not have been foreseen when it was written is no indictment.

Well no, the scenario I laid out is a broader problem. It highlights the unknown territory and the existing disagreements.

 

[GenMarshall]

Soviet film culture was and is widely considered to be highly innovative. Battleship Potempkin is widely considered one of the best films of all time. This is just factually incorrect.

So long as said culture is of the benefit of the state and is not deemed politically offensive, undesirable, and/or counter-revolutionary. The Soviet film industry remained part of the government and thus they had say what is acceptable or not. Communism is left untouched and never have any criticisms towards it. Goskino was esentially the USSR’s film censorship board to ensure the film does not stray from the party’s ideological lines. If there were any, the director and artist would have a “friendly” visit from the KGB and said material that is critical of the communist regime is to be removed, edited, reshot, or shelved.

I don’t see how in the world a pre-perestroika and pre-glasnost Soviet film culture to be innovative when there’s such heavy handed censorship from the state. At most, the Soviet dissenters and their samizdat activities, I see as more innovative as they had to be creative to skirt around the Soviet censorship apparatus.

 

[Perfection]

Yes, I have @Mise 's head trademarked as is my god-given right

 

[Crezth]

So long as said culture is of the benefit of the state and is not deemed politically offensive, undesirable, and/or counter-revolutionary. The Soviet film industry remained part of the government and thus they had say what is acceptable or not. Communism is left untouched and never have any criticisms towards it. Goskino was esentially the USSR’s film censorship board to ensure the film does not stray from the party’s ideological lines. If there were any, the director and artist would have a “friendly” visit from the KGB and said material that is critical of the communist regime is to be removed, edited, reshot, or shelved.

I don’t see how in the world a pre-perestroika and pre-glasnost Soviet film culture to be innovative when there’s such heavy handed censorship from the state. At most, the Soviet dissenters and their samizdat activities, I see as more innovative as they had to be creative to skirt around the Soviet censorship apparatus.

Wrong dude.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I don’t see how in the world a pre-perestroika and pre-glasnost Soviet film culture to be innovative when there’s such heavy handed censorship from the state. At most, the Soviet dissenters and their samizdat activities, I see as more innovative as they had to be creative to skirt around the Soviet censorship apparatus.

There are many Soviet films, films that were approved by the State Committee for Cinematography mind you, that are widely considered some of the best cinema ever produced in the world. For instance, Battleship Potempkin.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Make no mistake, art will always be made. But in this case, art exists despite capitalism. It exists because it is a human activity to make art. Regardless of the extent it's been cut, measured, weighed, and pounded, it is not IP that has put the glory of humanity before you, but raw human creativity which is just being filtered through a machine for pigs.

I really like this quote.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Soviet film culture was and is widely considered to be highly innovative. Battleship Potempkin is widely considered one of the best films of all time. This is just factually incorrect.

BP was created in 1925 during Lenin's reign and during the transition from Tzarist war chaos to Stalin. Being able to point to one film in the past 100 years is not a rousing tour de force of film making. Perhaps you can find 2 or 3 more?

I don't even understand how someone can think that "pay people to live and abolish private ownership" even remotely describes Russia, Korea, or China. Like, seriously, it's Kellyanne Conway-level alternative facts.

I made two sentences on purpose and separated my thoughts. The first sentence was about paying people to live and abolishing private property as a socialistic answer and how that was not any kind of solution to the issue. The second was about the art we have seen coming out of that block of countries over the past 70 or so years. With perhaps a few exceptions, most of it has been terrible.

 

[Plains-Cow]

I don't even understand how someone can think that "pay people to live and abolish private ownership" even remotely describes Russia, Korea, or China. Like, seriously, it's Kellyanne Conway-level alternative facts.

I'm still struggling to understand why photocopying a book = stealing from a bank account.

 

[NinjaCow64]

BP was created in 1925 during Lenin's reign and during the transition from Tzarist war chaos and Stalin. Being able to point to one film in the past 100 years is not a rousing tour de force of film making. Perhaps you can find 2 or 3 more?

Andrei Tarkovsky’s entire back catalog???

I am dumbfounded by the posts in this thread. Like I’m not going to pretend that I am a film expert but denying that the Soviets had a rich film culture is like pretending that Renaissance Italians were bad at painting, sculpture and music. How do I even begin to explain how you are wrong about this?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Andrei Tarkovsky’s entire back catalog???

I am dumbfounded by the posts in this thread. Like I’m not going to pretend that I am a film expert but denying that the Soviets had a rich film culture is like pretending that Renaissance Italians were bad at painting, sculpture and music. How do I even begin to explain how you are wrong about this?

Yes he does appear to worthy of note and was seen by others as a great director. +1

Tarkovsky became a film director during the mid and late 1950s, a period referred to as the Khrushchev Thaw, during which Soviet society opened to foreign films, literature and music, among other things. This allowed Tarkovsky to see films of European, American and Japanese directors, an experience that influenced his own film making. His teacher and mentor at the film school, Mikhail Romm, allowed his students considerable freedom and emphasized the independence of the film director.

 

[sophie]

There was an entire like 40 year golden age of Czech animation filled with some of the most creative, groundbreaking, mind bending stuff you’ve ever seen in your life that basically entirely faded away after privatization in 90s because there’s very little commercial interest in privately funding hand drawn animated art films.

Which rather demonstrates the point.

 

[Crezth]

Akira Kurosawa, a nobody film director from a nothing country, tried to kill himself in 1971 because he couldn't find anyone to fund his movies, and his previous film had been a commercial failure.

He failed at the suicide, and within a year, Mosfilm approached him with an offer to make a movie - anything he wanted.

He made Dersu Uzala, a passion project he was head over heels for 30 years, a project he hatched in the oppression of wartime Japan. It was not censored & he had full creative control.

 

[Evie]

Copyright does not stop at the payment of residuals (in fact, copyright has *nothing* to do with the payment of residuals, again - copyright deals with royalties, not residuals). Copyright is absolute right to control the reproduction, distribution, modification or creation of derived work from your original work. Meaning that if you give copyright to ten thousand people, ten thousand people have the absolute right to control the reproduction,distribution, modification or creation of derived work.

How likely is it that all ten thousand people agree on one reproduction deal, one distribution deal? And how fair is it that one, or fifty, or a hundred people can prevent the other nine thousand, nine hundred and more from reaping the benefit of their work by holding out? Even if you limit each person'S copyright to their individual part in the whole work, too many of those individual parts are meaningless without the others. You cannot just break down the movie into its constituent part and sell those independently.

And even in that case, very, very, very few parts of the film would belong to one person alone. Even a single shot would belong to every actor on the scene, the director, potentially the writers if any words are uttered, potentially multiple camera people...this is simply not a reasonable way of determining control of a film. The only way this could really be made to happen would be with a collective ownership system where the group together owns the rights, and either decide by vote, or delegate control of the rights to agents representing them. It's possible, but it would require setting into place the regulations and processes for creating those collective ownership entities *before* they can hold any copyright.

In any event, none of the demands of WGA or SAG-AFTRA involve copyright control of their work - because it is not actually, despite your claims otherwise, particularly well suited to what they want. They want better pay and better contractual rights, not increased control over the works (Which is what copyright would actually grant them). Better control of the work would at best be one way to gain that, but collective agreements is probably actually a much faster route to the same result. Hence, why they are not demanding copyright control.

Now, if hypothetically we wanted to legislate a right to residuals, we could absolutely do that, I'm not against it, but that would also be completely different from copyright.

As to why work for hire is different, generally that would be because you agreed to a contract where you were creating on the behalf of someone else rather than on your own behalf. That's the whole point: once you agree to do something on someone else's behalf, then it's as if *they* created the thing. There are benefits to that agreement: you completely sidestep having to sell your work after it's finished (and praying your work *will* sell, because failing to sell your work after you've invested hundreds of hours into it is absolutely a risk of non-for-hire work), for guaranteed pay, and you get paid while doing the work rather than only after it is completed. But the tradeoff is that you surrender long-term control of the work to someone else on whose behalf you are working and who pay you accordingly.

(I do, however, agree that the idea that capitalism is essential for artistic creation is gobbledygok.)

 

[Perfection]

also if there's no intellectual property how will we know which star wars is canon and which isn't?

 

[NinjaCow64]

Yes he does appear to worthy of note and was seen by others as a great director. +1

Oh come on. Are you seriously going to argue that every good Soviet film director “doesn’t count” because of whatever historical straws you can grasp? Please tell me that is not what you are arguing.

That would be as an intellectually dishonest argument as if I pretended that A Streetcar Named Desire “doesn’t count” as good American cinema because they had to alter the script because of the Hay’s Code.

 

[NinjaCow64]

also if there's no intellectual property how will we know which star wars is canon and which isn't?

The workers, comrade, the workers should decide what films are canon or not.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Capitalism is not essential for art to thrive. You need talented artists with the freedom and incentives to create. Some cultural environments are better at that than others. Some political environments are better at that than others. Repressive cultures and political systems are less likely to allow the arts to thrive beyond the narrow confines of the constraints.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I notice the shifting of goal posts here.

I am happy to return to a broader conversation about capitalism and art but I just want it acknowledged that the Soviet Union did have a strong film culture and that both GenMarshall’s and BirdJaguar’s earlier statements were incorrect.

 

[amadeus]

There was an entire like 40 year golden age of Czech animation filled with some of the most creative, groundbreaking, mind bending stuff you’ve ever seen in your life that basically entirely faded away after privatization in 90s because there’s very little commercial interest in privately funding hand drawn animated art films.

Which rather demonstrates the point.

Sounds like the Czechoslovaks didn’t want it.