The Good and Evil in Tolkien’s world are different from the ones in ours. Any argument that refers to the value systems in LotR as if they could be wholly transplanted to our world is therefor void.

Having said that, here is what PJ said:

But it is precisely in the area of moral rights that CC fails, and I wish someone would come up with a workaround. Here’s what I mean: there have been a couple of folks who dislike me or Groklaw who have deliberately set up mirrors of Groklaw’s articles with the publicly expressed intention of diverting readers from Groklaw. They surround the articles of mine with articles of their own all about how awful Groklaw is and/or my policies, blah blah. At the moment there isn’t a thing I can do to stop it. I hope one of you brainiacs will come up with a way to handle situations like that. It should never be that folks can use anyone’s work abusively on purpose to try to harm the author. That’s the kind of meanness that the law is born for. Surely there is a way to craft a license so that the author retains the right to selectively terminate the license, perhaps based on pre-stated violations, even in a noncommercial setting.

There are a lot of things that I wanted to respond to in this discussion, but this comment requires my immediate attention. If I waisted my effort by duplicating any of the responses following PJ’s post, it is because I had to say something about it before I continued with my study of the discussion. Finally, this is not a troll. I state here that this is a reaction to PJ’s post, and is not written solely to create an argument. If it sounds strong, that is because she has advocated something that threatens everything that I believe I have been arguing against with copyright.

<rant mode=”on”>

Can you really be serious? You of all people should know that copyright was not created to censor free speech. Do you think that Groklaw is not speech but a work of creativity? Guess again. Groklaw is a forum for people to voice their political views. The views expressed are primarily yours because it is your site. However, you should realize that if you were having this same discussion in a room, and not in cyberspace, it would be entirely speech. In this instance, you are actually, considering the use of copyright laws to stop people from saying bad things about you in an argument you have picked with them. I am in no way defending them, but when you do what is right, you should realize that those in the wrong will fight back. Whether or not they play fair, they have a right to voice their opinions — even about you. If you believe those statements are false, there are always slander and libel laws to protect you.

So, you say they use your words against you, eh? Guess what: that is precisely what you do to them. What would the world be like if we were not able to publish the statements of SCO execs because they had “selective license[s]” that could be used to control your right to reproduce their speech? This control you talk of would be far more powerful in the hands of your enemies, and the fact that this idea is coming from you is frightening.

So they use your words against you. Big deal. You should be proud. You are having an effect, and you have managed not to get sued by these litigious miscreants. If they did not use your words, you could be pretty confident that they did not care what you had to say. Their insults are nothing less than a badge of honor which you should wear proudly. Many in your audience wish they had the influence that you have.

Do not let their rottenness infect you. In The Lord of the Rings, Saruman the White wished to rid the world of evil. While considering the problem, he realized that the most efficient method to achieve that end was to control the world. By following this path, he became as evil as the evil he was fighting. Is this what you want? Your enemies are greed and selfishness personified. Do you want to emulate them? Please do not. You are too important to those of us who have not gone over to the dark side.

If copyright can be used to censor speech and discussion, how will the first amendment matter? We are rapidly moving into a time where all speech is cached, and that speech will fall under the scope of copyright. In the future, everything you say will be governed by the law. If that does not sound like 1984, what does? Do not let these irritating little rats goad you into unconsciously helping them.

</rant>

I am so tired of people thinking that copyright is about control. Copyright is about an incentive. That incentive is not control. That incentive is not guaranteed profit. That incentive is temporary protection from competition. There is nothing more to copyright. And there should be nothing more.

Is there really any difference between building a new work based on the ideas that inspire you and building a new work based on a textual work that is based on the ideas? The only explanation for your attempt to differ them is that the former is not fixed in any tangible form while the latter is fixed in any tangible form such as book.

In Ivory Tower, you are required to give attribution to anything that you copy regardless of what form it is. Else, you will be accused of plagiarism. If you copy an idea, thought, theory, or concept from someone else or from a source that is not yours, should you give attribution for the source? Ivory Tower says yes. But, there is no true freedom of communication and knowledge in Ivory Tower. Ivory Tower is very obsessive with “credit where credit is due” that it is willing to restrain the freedom. We should not listen to Ivory Tower and we should not let Ivory Tower dictate how we
should communicate.

Assuming that you do not believe that one needs to provide attribution for the ideas that inspire the person, the next problem is how you define a derivative. How much of work is considered as a derivative. If I copy only one sentence from an old book, is it a derivative? One paragraph? One chapter? 10% of the old book? 20%? 50%? 75%?

Everyone has different opinion on attribution. I like to give attribution to the public domain works but I would not give attribution to the ideas that come from the works that still have copyrights (except when I am in Ivory Tower because I could not afford to lose degree). Also, if an expression in a copyrighted work is not copyrightable due to the Merger Doctrine, I will not give attribution. Some authors and artists are really 100% control freak that they want attribution for everything in their works including the ideas within the works. (But then, they are just hypocrite for they do not even give attribution for the ideas that inspire them.) Then, there are people who are control freak in lesser degree. We should not let the freedom of communication be in held hostage by them. Once copyrights in their works expire, their control in any form over the works cease. That includes attribution. After that, people should have the flexibility in deciding whether and when they should give attribution.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

Believe is a very strong word. For the sake of
the freedom of communication, yes, I do. I feel
that it is best for the creative authors and
artists to be unfettered without chains of
attribution.

Before you brand me as a heretic, just look at
many authors and artists. They copied many elements
from the public domain works and yet, they claimed
that they are their own. Witness J. K. Rowling
with her Harry Potter stories. No author
lives on an island. It is just the fact of life
that keeping track of attributions will retard
and restrain the creative process of authors
and artists.

It is no wonder why the public domain is so
unpopular with the authors and artists even
though they hypocritically rely on it as the
sources for their works.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

Perhaps I’m missing something here, but that is wrong on any level.

It may be more precisely expressed as “requiring that any explicit or implicit attribution that is conveyed with an artwork or its context is truthful”.
That means that if a work is presented in a gallery where it is implicit that there are a variety of authors, then each work does not need any attribution conveyed. However, if because the majority of works were authored by one artist, it became implicit that all works had the same author, then it should be made clear to the public that this was not the case – unless this could be demonstrated to be obviously unambiguous, e.g. due to the nature or fame of the works involved.

An artist’s right to truth, does not confer a ‘right to promotion’. Nor does it confer a right to prohibit unfavourable derivatives – merely that where there is a danger that the original artist may be incorrectly implicated as the author of the derivative, this must be prevented.