Copyright

OB1Shinobi wrote: so fanfics is one of the areas i have preference over

the legality or morality of writing stories inspired by other peoples stories is totally outside the realm of my concern

Orson Scott Card wrote: "I'm flattered; and then, if they try to publish it (including on the net) except in very restricted circumstances, I will sue, because if I do NOT act vigorously to protect my copyright, I will lose that copyright -- and that is the only inheritance I have to leave my family. So fan fiction, while flattering, is also an attack on my means of livelihood. It is also a poor substitute for the writers' inventing their own characters and situations. It does not help them as writers; it can easily harm me; and those who care about my stories and characters know that what I write is "real" and has authority, and what fans write is not and does not. So it's all pointless. I'd prefer simply to ignore it when it happens, but the way copyright law functions, I am told that I cannot ignore it."

I'd like to present a comparison (though not counter, because the discussion is slightly different) to Steamboat's comment with a story I read a little while ago, from the Guardian website..


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


Article here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/feb/01/paulo-coelho-readers-pirate-books

i dont actually write fanfics of other peoples books - or i havent anyway, i should have said CHARACTERS - specifically those of the tekken game series and the masters of the universe (HE-MAN!) cartoons

ive got a whole backstory to explain why some people have cyborg qualities and weird mechanical body parts and why there are flying machines with lasers and computer chips but people still use swords and shields

and my tekkenstories go back to historical fuedal japan

also i have done some jedi based stuff which is consistent with the sw universe of the movies

ive made tons and tons of my own characters as well as reinterpreting those of these seriez

all of this because of love for the characters and the worlds that i imagine them to inhabit

i dont see any form of personal expression as being pointless

my view of art and the value of art has very little use for the word "pointless" at all

and if the word is ever approprite it would not be as a result of how commercially marketable i judged the work to be

to me that is the least important consideration

i make art because i want to make art

i write because i like to write

if i ever do make money off of my creative works that is great but if i dont that defi itely does not make the work pointless

Edan wrote: I'd like to present a comparison (though not counter, because the discussion is slightly different) to Steamboat's comment with a story I read a little while ago, from the Guardian website..


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


Article here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/feb/01/paulo-coelho-readers-pirate-books

Statistically, Pirates spend more per capita on supporting art than non-pirates. Especially on music. We spent an entire week discussing this in my music business class in college. I don't have the links my professor used to support this, but he had corporate access to billboard charts and Big Champaign which tracks file shares.

6h057 wrote:

Edan wrote: I'd like to present a comparison (though not counter, because the discussion is slightly different) to Steamboat's comment with a story I read a little while ago, from the Guardian website..

Statistically, Pirates spend more per capita on supporting art than non-pirates. Especially on music. We spent an entire week discussing this in my music business class in college. I don't have the links my professor used to support this, but he had corporate access to billboard charts and Big Champaign which tracks file shares.

And here's where it gets sticky: MC Lars makes more money letting fans "steal" his music than he would if he rigidly enforced his copyright on it. And he's got a very good point. Copyright laws are outdated, and have allowed many industries (the book and music industries among them) to make millions of dollars while still starving artists. And that's terribly wrong.

And some artists are such total jerkbags about their IP (I have a whole rant about Captain Robert that I won't go into here) that even if you go back and pay for what you stole, handing them money for something already in your possession, they still don't want you as a fan. And that's pretty jacked up for what amounts to free advertising.

Which is where we get into the other half of my "steamboat is inherently complicated again" opinion on copyright: it needs to be heavily revised, and piracy is a valid protest against corrupt copyright law, but only if the copyright holders are the ones making it possible. If you own your music, and you want to release it under copyleft, or a very non-restrictive license (like some CC licenses, or GPL, or MIT), or go to the far extreme of posting it to TPB yourself, telling your fans to steal the crap out of it, that's cool. Because those are your rights, it's your property, and you get to decide what to do with them.

My major point in this thread has just been "don't make that choice for the artist; let them make it themselves."

I understand. It's a valid point. And you're not wrong. The problem that I see with this idea, is that most artists, including the ones getting taken to the cleaners don't know anything about how their contract works or how they're actually making their money. They have a manager who handles all of that stuff. Often an entire management company. There are a very few cases (less than 1 in 20), where a recording artist actually makes money from their recordings. If I were in a contract like that, I'd feel ripped off. I'd go out and tell people to go steal my music because my label wasn't compensating me fairly. There in lies the huge problem. Labels hold the money. And the power. And controlling interest. Not only that, they have someone come in to tell them how to write and record their art. "So you mean to tell me, that I'll take out a venture capital loan from you after you think you can sell my art, only to not make any money till my money pays you back, while other parts of your organization are already profiting off of said art, you're going to tell me how to make my art, how to distribute my art, you're going to take my ticket and merch too? Screw you dude. I can't even afford to live off of the money I'm making and you keep me so busy touring I can't have another job. This situation is the norm sadly. It doesn't hurt the artist to pirate their music, it hurts the label that's raping the artist of their lifeblood.

6h057 wrote: I understand. It's a valid point. And you're not wrong. The problem that I see with this idea, is that most artists, including the ones getting taken to the cleaners don't know anything about how their contract works or how they're actually making their money. They have a manager who handles all of that stuff. Often an entire management company. There are a very few cases (less than 1 in 20), where a recording artist actually makes money from their recordings. If I were in a contract like that, I'd feel ripped off. I'd go out and tell people to go steal my music because my label wasn't compensating me fairly. There in lies the huge problem. Labels hold the money. And the power. And controlling interest. Not only that, they have someone come in to tell them how to write and record their art. "So you mean to tell me, that I'll take out a venture capital loan from you after you think you can sell my art, only to not make any money till my money pays you back, while other parts of your organization are already profiting off of said art, you're going to tell me how to make my art, how to distribute my art, you're going to take my ticket and merch too? Screw you dude. I can't even afford to live off of the money I'm making and you keep me so busy touring I can't have another job. This situation is the norm sadly. It doesn't hurt the artist to pirate their music, it hurts the label that's raping the artist of their lifeblood.

That is making the assumption that the labels in question is a major label or subsidiary. My favorite modern bands are on independent labels who give their artists a fair shake - IRS, Dangerbird, Profound Lore, etc. In such cases yeah, it really does affect the artist.

We've also not discussed how Taxes work for this stuff. Generally 40% goes to uncle suger. For that 50 grand over a three year period, we're talking $30,000 in pocket for record sales for each memember of a four member band. 10k per year. For 1 million albums sold. That's just wrong. On so many levels. You play in front of 10,000 people a night. Tickets average $45. Venue takes half. 22.50. 225,000. Two openers. They each have a $10,000 guarantee. $205,000. 2x 20 person crews at $200 a day per person ($8,000). $197,000. Lodging costs... $75 per crew member per day ($3,000). Per Diem... $50 per person per day ($2,000). Bus... $1000/day. Trucks 2-3 per stage. $2000/day. Average two days per show. PA rental, $10,000x 2. Total cost for one show: $56k. Wait a sec... The label didn't get their 50%!! $112,500. Less $56k. That leaves $56k per show. Divided by 4. $14,000 per member. Uncle suger gets 40%. $8,400. 200 shows in one tour cycle. 1.6 million roughly. Divided by 3 years. About $500,000 per year. This isn't figuring in insurance and a couple other things. Compare that with selling the one million records required to be an act of the status that could pull off touring like this. I don't think they make their real money from recordings. Never have, never will.

CryojenX wrote:

6h057 wrote: I understand. It's a valid point. And you're not wrong. The problem that I see with this idea, is that most artists, including the ones getting taken to the cleaners don't know anything about how their contract works or how they're actually making their money. They have a manager who handles all of that stuff. Often an entire management company. There are a very few cases (less than 1 in 20), where a recording artist actually makes money from their recordings. If I were in a contract like that, I'd feel ripped off. I'd go out and tell people to go steal my music because my label wasn't compensating me fairly. There in lies the huge problem. Labels hold the money. And the power. And controlling interest. Not only that, they have someone come in to tell them how to write and record their art. "So you mean to tell me, that I'll take out a venture capital loan from you after you think you can sell my art, only to not make any money till my money pays you back, while other parts of your organization are already profiting off of said art, you're going to tell me how to make my art, how to distribute my art, you're going to take my ticket and merch too? Screw you dude. I can't even afford to live off of the money I'm making and you keep me so busy touring I can't have another job. This situation is the norm sadly. It doesn't hurt the artist to pirate their music, it hurts the label that's raping the artist of their lifeblood.

That is making the assumption that the labels in question is a major label or subsidiary. My favorite modern bands are on independent labels who give their artists a fair shake - IRS, Dangerbird, Profound Lore, etc. In such cases yeah, it really does affect the artist.

I know of very few labels that do this. And chances are, the fans of the artists you're talking about don't steal their music. Most indie labels are owned by or have a distribution agreement with a major.

I find it interesting that many seem to claim that fanfiction is not original at all. I find that the best fanfiction not only is original, but in some cases it's actually better than the book it was based off. However, like all writing the majority of it is crappy and in the case of fanfiction that's 99%. Secondly as for it taking away from your income I would say that in many cases the free advertising may actually make the author more money. There have been several cases where I have only watched shows or read books after I had read fanfiction about them not before. The fanfiction was so good it made me want to pay for the books and tv shows and movies. In this case the fanfiction actually made money for the authors. Conversely the policy of an author on fanfiction can have a negative effect on my interest. For example, Robin Hobbs thoughts on fanfiction have led to me having zero interesting in ever buying or reading any of her books. However, if the author objects I would never write fanfiction for their series. OFC this might effect my interest level in reading or watching their work.