Comment on “Piracy is Piracy” – Disney and Universal team up to sue Midjourney
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 days agoIt’s quite illustrative of DE’s universe’s relevance to our world though.
(I’m more partial to SW KotORII: TSL, even if DE feels more like my life, even I wonder if Harry’s ex is too not just a blindingly bright and quite f-ckable picture, but also a murderer ; too autistic to look for authors’ contacts to ask them about it.)
Barred from expressing with monetizing it, you certainly mean? Otherwise most of fan fiction would have to be censored, having IP owners not willing competition.
And even then it’s in question, there are plenty of crowdfunded and later paid for indie games set in Harry Potter universe. Those I’m thinking about are NSFW though.
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 4 days ago
Fanfiction and non monetised use is not at all exempt from these laws but rather tolerated by the copyright holder.
I am not sure about those games you mentioning but its possible they are tolerated because a combination of plausible deniability (wizard uk boarding school isnt that orginal) and not wanting it to gain any more publicity. Disney did the same thing ignoring Micky mouse porn.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Should fix that in law, based on the commonality of such use.
IP companies use every such opening, we should too.
Except they even use character names from HP.
Publicity - maybe, would be funny.
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 4 days ago
I would personally argue that fixing the law means getting rid of the notion of intellectual property all together.
In my own reasoning someone copying me is the highest form of flattery and i would still have an edge understanding the properties of own idea better then the copycat does.
Its a huge limiter on human progress and absolutely non sensical in situations where multiple people just happen to have a similar idea. As it stands now an employee could invent the cure to cancer, the employer claiming it and then putting it in a vault to never use and bar anyone from creating it.
Naturally such idea of abolishing copyright receives lots of criticism from many people because we would have to solve other problems that copyright now aims to fix but i don’t think that justifies the damage it does.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Perhaps now - yes. 20 years ago one could argue, but today in practice it, as it was intended, simply already doesn’t exist. Those holding the IP are those having enough power to insert themselves in a right place. The initial purpose is just not achievable.
Yes, if the artist thinks that. And no, if the artist expects to make some money from every copy.
That’s true for patents and technologies, but not true for art and software, where it’s improbable to just come up with the same thing.
Now - maybe. There are a few traditional ways, like authors reading aloud pieces of their creations and people buying tickets to such performances, same with music. And models with paying forward for a request, like crowdfunding or an order.
But personally I still think some form of it should exist. Maybe non-transferable to companies and other people other than via inheritance. Intellectual work is work, and people do it to get paid. It’s just not good enough if the returns don’t scale with popularity.
Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
While in capitalism we’ll always have ip, copyright, what have you.
Gotta “protect” capital