Comment by oharapj

6 days ago

Just because there's currently no legal basis for something does not mean that the perspective that it shouldn't happen is invalid

10 comments

oharapj

Reply
Gormo  6 days ago

Copyright is a legal construct in its entirety. The perspective that there is a difference between which use cases are "allowed" for public-domain works absolutely is invalid.

If you are proposing some creating some new framework distinct from copyright for restricting the way people may adapt ideas originated by others to their own use cases, that calls for a great deal more explanation and argumentation than you've yet offered.

  • oharapj  6 days ago

    I fear you're failing to understand the distinction between having a perspective that something is wrong with the current system, and having all the legal answers about how to successfully encode such distinction into law. OP's comment was that that people shouldn't want there to be a legal difference.

    You're also failing to understand that I am not even making a claim that there should be a difference, I'm merely pointing out that your dismissal of the artists that wish to prevent Tin-Tin from being gentrified is shallow and essentially amounts to 'that's the way things are'.

    When people ask 'why is x wrong' the answer isn't usually 'because it's against the law'. This is a boring statement and sheds no real light.

    • ForOldHack  6 days ago

      Gentrified is one thing, while rule 34 is another, while. the misuse...

      "One of the guys had brought a comic book porn magazine of the ******."

      The current system protects the rights of the owner for a while, and the opportunity for nefarious use by trolls, while it prevents the innovation for other beneficial uses like the association with benevolent organizations.

      This is not a hard problem, its a very hard problem, for which the current frameworks used to be merely inadequate, are not woefully inadequate, to the point of being very damaging to the intent of the artist, and to the artistic process.

      1 reply →

    • Gormo  6 days ago

      > I fear you're failing to understand the distinction between having a perspective that something is wrong with the current system

      The problem with that perspective is that the concept of copyright originates from and only exists within that system. Copyright itself is a legal contrivance. If you want to propose some other way of doing things, you need to argue from first principles and articulate the normative assumptions that you are starting from.

      > I'm merely pointing out that your dismissal of the artists that wish to prevent Tin-Tin from being gentrified is shallow and essentially amounts to 'that's the way things are'.

      And I'd like to merely point out that entire concept of a cartoon being 'gentrified' is something that you and/or the people you're attributing these opinions to have just made up out of thin air, and what you're actually implicitly arguing for is creating a new type of copyright that restricts what other people are allowed to do, without offering any justification for that additional system of restrictions in any meaningful way.

      Copyright, at least in the US, stems from a pragmatic desire to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", and not out of some normative notion that ideas ought to be treated like rivalrous property simply because some people have emotional attachments to them. If that latter proposition is what you're bringing into the discussion, you need to explicitly argue your case for it, and not just sneak it in like it's something everyone already understands and accepts.

      2 replies →