The "Team Four Star" actors were blacklisted by Funi and Toei rumor

[ABED]

I mean there's a big difference between ripping off someone's general storylines and themes and incorporating it into your story, and outright using another property's footage and characters by name and appearance. Most of the past fiction you're metioning was of the former nature, and that's still been happening in the past century and a half of entertainment. Movies and TV shows rip each other off liberally. I mean up until the Seinfeld and later Friends rewrote the book in the 90s, basically every single sitcom for about 30 years were reycling the same basic plots, to just give one example. And then after Seinfeld and Friends...people just started copying them instead.

I know people cite the great artists steal quote, which is true...but great artists don't *copy* either, if that makes sense. I feel like people misinterpret that saying to justify tracing and more direct copying of other works.

It depends on what you mean by "copying." Many great works outright borrow someone else's work for their own setting. The most obvious cases of something everyone deems okay, of course, are books or movies which lift from Nordic, Greek and Biblical myths. But as for another example, like I said above, Shakespeare didn't merely "rip off," a lot of his work shared identical plot points and character names with the work he was appropriating, Romeo and Julie once more being one of the more egregious examples of a play written based on a poem from a few years before, which was in turn also based on someone else's story. What set him apart was his use of language and structure. A lesser known case involves one Thomas Dekker's play The Shoemaker's Holiday presented in 1599 blatantly using the same story and characters as Thomas Deloney's 1597 prose work The Gentle Craft, yet critics would hardly consider the latter superior artistically to the former. Up until the 18th and 19th centuries, this sort of artistic appropriation was very frequent.

Another famous case is the book Ulysses by James Joyce which works within the universe created by Homer in his epics. Many would no doubt justify this case by saying the two are millenia apart, but the point remains that if instead of the Iliad and the Odyssey being written millenia ago, they were written a few decades before Joyce's work and remained chained by copyright law, Ulysses, a monumental piece in the history of literature, would never have been written. Artistic freedom is a great thing.

But the timeframe does fundamentally change things. The point of copyright law is that it's to protect the rights of the creator, but not into perpetuity.

And no one's creativity or artistic freedom is being suppressed. As has been pointed out, if someone wants to use a copyrighted work as the basis for their's, they can simply ask permission. If they don't get it, make something original but influenced by it. Need I remind everyone here that George Lucas originally wanted to get the rights to make a Flash Gordon movie but couldn't so he created his own world heavily influenced by it.

[Yuji]

The point of copyright law is that it's to protect the rights of the creator, but not into perpetuity.

Tell that to Disney or, no doubt, Dragon Ball by the end of this century. Perpetual extensions of copyright law will continue to be signed.

I don't think billionaires need the sort of protections we should award the poor, and in an ideal world we wouldn't need copyright protections anyway. I think we've gone over the intended purpose of this thread, I apologize. In essence, I agree with this:

Copyright law needs to be reduced to mere acknowledgement of a work's origin. Furthermore, we should have a UBI so that nobody need want of basic necessities.

[ABED]

The point of copyright law is that it's to protect the rights of the creator, but not into perpetuity.

Tell that to Disney or, no doubt, Dragon Ball by the end of this century. Perpetual extensions of copyright law will continue to be signed.

I don't think billionaires need the sort of protections we should award the poor, and in an ideal world we wouldn't need copyright protections anyway. I think we've gone over the intended purpose of this thread, I apologize. In essence, I agree with this:

Copyright law needs to be reduced to mere acknowledgement of a work's origin. Furthermore, we should have a UBI so that nobody need want of basic necessities.

Yes, the laws need ironing out but that you don't extend the principle of protecting property rights to BILLIONAIRZ because they have more money is corrupt. Your rights should be protect regardless of income, otherwise it's not a right, it's an arbitrarily granted privilege.

And at least with Dinsey, they aren't just living off of it without any effort. They are making use of their copyrights.

In an ideal world there wouldn't be people stealing ideas thus no need for copyright laws but alas we don't live in a perfect world. Now set aside Julie's non-sequitur about UBI what the hell does copyright laws just being acknowledgement of the world's origin even mean? Then it's not a right. It's a glorified Wikipedia entry. What purpose does it serve?

[jjgp1112]

Right. You create something, you're entitled to money from every last thing that comes from it that doesn't fall under fair use. If somebody wants to make a whole work based off your property a simple "acknowledgment" doesn't cut it.

[Matches Malone]

You create something, you're entitled to money from every last thing that comes from it that doesn't fall under fair use. If somebody wants to make a whole work based off your property a simple "acknowledgment" doesn't cut it.

I couldn't agree more. Successful people don't owe anyone a single thing. This isn't aimed at TFS as they don't come off as being entitled, but rather people who cry about being owed parts of the profits and properties of successful people.

[Yuji]

You create something, you're entitled to money from every last thing that comes from it that doesn't fall under fair use. If somebody wants to make a whole work based off your property a simple "acknowledgment" doesn't cut it.

I couldn't agree more. Successful people don't owe anyone a single thing. This isn't aimed at TFS as they don't come off as being entitled, but rather people who cry about being owed parts of the profits and properties of successful people.

Exactly. Nobody owes nobody anything. You don't owe someone royalties after purchasing and consuming a work someone has deliberately published at a deliberate price if you choose to use it for your own creative endeavors. The freest society necessarily means stripping away superfluous, restricting laws like copyright.

And at least with Dinsey, they aren't just living off of it without any effort. They are making use of their copyrights.

In an ideal world there wouldn't be people stealing ideas thus no need for copyright laws but alas we don't live in a perfect world. Now set aside Julie's non-sequitur about UBI what the hell does copyright laws just being acknowledgement of the world's origin even mean? Then it's not a right. It's a glorified Wikipedia entry. What purpose does it serve?

Sorry, I should have clarified or elaborated, perhaps. Copyright isn't a "right." You're not entitled to your own work from the moment you decide to publish it. It may seem extreme, but on a smaller scale, this is how art criticism nowadays operates. Many people like to employ the infamous "Death of the Author" (not saying you do necessarily, I don't know you) without realizing its implications on a broader scale. Divorcing author from work has allowed for an enormous amount of culturally significant interpretations of major works. For maximum creative innovation, it necessarily follows that art shouldn't be legally tied to one person or corporation. That's an intellectual monopoly.

I don't think UBI is a non-sequitur. Copyright law can be abolished if struggling artists have a safety net to fall back on in case their work gets appropriated by someone else who makes something more engaging that results in a bigger profit. As society attempts to fade out the importance of money for survival, laws created to safeguard the poor but turned into laws boosting the rich should be abolished entirely.

[ABED]

It is a right - hence copyRIGHT. Just because the property isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not property. Non-rivalrous consumption doesn't change any of this.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Why not just have the super rich give their MONEY to more needed people instead of losing rights to their hard work? The former is reasonable and the latter....Eehhh...

[jjgp1112]

I'm sorry, that's a major leap. Your right to an intellectual property and the money that comes from it has absolutely nothing to do with how people choose to interpret it. It's shit that YOU created with your hard work and mind, and what people think of it doesn't actually change that.

[Yuji]

I'm sorry, that's a major leap. Your right to an intellectual property and the money that comes from it has absolutely nothing to do with how people choose to interpret it. It's shit that YOU created with your hard work and mind, and what people think of it doesn't actually change that.

It is incredibly baffling that this kind of special treatment gets afforded to artists exclusively. A carpenter makes a table, sells the table, that table is no longer his; his client can sell it to someone else, destroy it, use it for decoration, anything, nobody bats an eye. A baker makes a cake, someone buys it, that cake no longer belongs to the cook. A company makes a computer, someone buys it.... You see where I'm going with this?

I know the visceral reaction you're feeling is normal, I'm an artist too. But there's no reason outside of greed to want to keep tabs on what happens to your work after you've deliberately put it out there for consumption and use.

[Cure Dragon 255]

No that's bullshit. I understand that billionares and other people are scum and that their money excess could go to more needed people. But that's not the same as a chair or a cake.

[Yuji]

No that's bullshit. I understand that billionares and other people are scum and that their money excess could go to more needed people. But that's not the same as a chair or a cake.

Why is it not? You're commodifying your art by publishing it for purchase. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a different subject, but you are in essence relinquishing material control of your own work when publishing.

[ABED]

I'm sorry, that's a major leap. Your right to an intellectual property and the money that comes from it has absolutely nothing to do with how people choose to interpret it. It's shit that YOU created with your hard work and mind, and what people think of it doesn't actually change that.

It is incredibly baffling that this kind of special treatment gets afforded to artists exclusively. A carpenter makes a table, sells the table, that table is no longer his; his client can sell it to someone else, destroy it, use it for decoration, anything, nobody bats an eye. A baker makes a cake, someone buys it, that cake no longer belongs to the cook. A company makes a computer, someone buys it.... You see where I'm going with this?

I know the visceral reaction you're feeling is normal, I'm an artist too. But there's no reason outside of greed to want to keep tabs on what happens to your work after you've deliberately put it out there for consumption and use.

In this case though they aren't selling something physical. They are selling the use of the idea.

Why is it not? You're commodifying your art by publishing it for purchase. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a different subject, but you are in essence relinquishing material control of your own work when publishing.

But it's not a good comparison because the cake someone sells is just THAT cake, not an idea. You're free to do whatever you want to your copy of whatever book you own, but you aren't free to take the story, publish your own and pass the characters off as your own.

[Yuji]

In this case though they aren't selling something physical. They are selling the use of the idea.

But it's not a good comparison because the cake is just THAT cake, not an idea. You're free to do whatever you want to your copy of whatever book you own, but you aren't free to take the story, publish your own and pass the characters off as your own.

You can't "own" an idea, or a group of ideas after you've deliberately voiced them. You can "own" an idea, perhaps, if you've maintained it a secret, like the Coca-Cola formula. The moment you've presented your idea in public, you've relinquished ownership because you rely on a third party (the government, the justice system, the good will of strangers who come across that information and choose not to appropriate or replicate it) to keep it, whereas with material property, you can defend your right to ownership by yourself. Property is physical, not vague and intangible. By its very nature, "intellectual property" is an oxymoron.

[Cure Dragon 255]

So the greedy malicious Coca Cola Company gets their profits and artists that worked hard get nothing? That right there is a crock of bullshit.

[ABED]

In this case though they aren't selling something physical. They are selling the use of the idea.

But it's not a good comparison because the cake is just THAT cake, not an idea. You're free to do whatever you want to your copy of whatever book you own, but you aren't free to take the story, publish your own and pass the characters off as your own.

You can't "own" an idea, or a group of ideas after you've deliberately voiced them. You can "own" an idea, perhaps, if you've maintained it a secret, like the Coca-Cola formula. The moment you've presented your idea in public, you've relinquished ownership because you rely on a third party (the government, the justice system) to keep it, whereas with material property, you can defend it by yourself. Property is physical, not vague and intangible. By its very nature, "intellectual property" is an oxymoron.

You can own a specific idea like a character or design. The non-rivalrous consumption of intellectual property doesn't change that. You also require a third party to defend your home. Without them agreeing that you own the property, you have no legitimate claim to keep someone off it, much less keep them off it by force. As for art, you can exclude the free rider.

Property isn't limited to the physical. You don't relinquish ownership just because you rely on a third party to enforce ownership.

[Yuji]

So the greedy malicious Coca Cola Company gets their profits and artists that worked hard get nothing? That right there is a crock of bullshit.

I don't see how you interpreted that from my post. I described a process through which one may perhaps keep ownership of an idea, by maintaining it secret. I didn't ascribe any moral value to it. All human knowledge is a collective endeavor and any idea would be improved if shared and and allowed to be improved upon. This is true for the Coca Cola formula as well.

You can own a specific idea like a character or design. The non-rivalrous consumption of intellectual property doesn't change that. You also require a third party to defend your home. Without them agreeing that you own the property, you have no legitimate claim to keep someone off it, much less keep them off it by force. As for art, you can exclude the free rider.

You can own everything nowadays legally, but we're discussing philosophy at this point, we've moved beyond law. Of course, multiple parties are today involved in land ownership, but in a vacuum, land is still a material commodity. In a lawless land, you can pick up a weapon and defend it without the aid of a third party. How do you defend ownership of an idea without the aid of the government and the good will of strangers?

[Cure Dragon 255]

No, we didnt. Akira Toriyama, or any other artist that worked hard for their given intellectual properties deserve to have the finantial security their hard work provided. Period. You or anyone else dont get to profit off it. You sound so happy to just give away the rights to your life's work. I wonder how happy would you be if it actually happened.

[ABED]

So the greedy malicious Coca Cola Company gets their profits and artists that worked hard get nothing? That right there is a crock of bullshit.

I don't see how you interpreted that from my post. I described a process how one may perhaps keep ownership of an idea, by maintaining it secret. I didn't ascribe any moral value to it. All human knowledge is a collective endeavor and any idea would be improved if shared and and allowed to be improved upon. This is true for the Coca Cola formula as well.

You can own a specific idea like a character or design. The non-rivalrous consumption of intellectual property doesn't change that. You also require a third party to defend your home. Without them agreeing that you own the property, you have no legitimate claim to keep someone off it, much less keep them off it by force. As for art, you can exclude the free rider.

You can own everything nowadays legally, but we're discussing philosophy at this point, we've moved beyond law. Of course, multiple parties are today involved in land ownership, but in a vacuum, land is still a material commodity. In a lawless land, you can pick up a weapon and defend it without the aid of a third party. How do you defend ownership of an idea without the aid of the government and the good will of strangers?

Human knowledge is NOT a collective endevour.

There are plenty of ways to protect the idea without a third party like limiting distribution, etc. So what defines something as legitimately yours is that you have the ability to defend it? So if some big jackass takes my stuff and is better able to defend it, does that make them the legitimate owner? You do need the government involved regardless if it's tangible or not.

[jjgp1112]

In this case though they aren't selling something physical. They are selling the use of the idea.

But it's not a good comparison because the cake is just THAT cake, not an idea. You're free to do whatever you want to your copy of whatever book you own, but you aren't free to take the story, publish your own and pass the characters off as your own.

You can't "own" an idea, or a group of ideas after you've deliberately voiced them. You can "own" an idea, perhaps, if you've maintained it a secret, like the Coca-Cola formula. The moment you've presented your idea in public, you've relinquished ownership because you rely on a third party (the government, the justice system, the good will of strangers who come across that information and choose not to appropriate or replicate it) to keep it, whereas with material property, you can defend your right to ownership by yourself. Property is physical, not vague and intangible. By its very nature, "intellectual property" is an oxymoron.

But when an idea is then turned into something produced and sold, the item is the public's but the idea, the intellectual property, belongs to the mind that made it. It's ethically dubious at best for someone to take your concept, make something out of it, and sell it without you seeing any profits for it - and thus, why laws are necessary to prevent that from happening. Someone can resell the physical product of which you've earned money for the intellectual ideas within that product, but they can't produce their own version with your ideas and sell it.

If someone wants to make something off your idea, then they should inject their own ideas into it and make it something their own. That's how innovation actually happens.