Aberree vs Disnee again
Continuing from yesterday's discussion of good management vs tech-monster management of a digital storefront...

The item I ordered brings up a separate topic. For clarity, this item was made long before the current GOOD management of the storefront, so it has ZERO connection to them.

The item is a scene of an old saloon. It includes several OBJs and several textures that are unquestionably derived from my free work posted at ShareCG. I knew about the derivation a long time ago, so this is old news.

Did I buy the item in order to start litigation? No, the exact opposite. I bought the item to use for my own enjoyment, because the artist ADDED VALUE. He added some of his own pieces, creating a scene that pleases my tastes by definition because it reflects my tastes. I could have built this scene, but I never got around to it, so it's worth paying a few bucks to let the other artist build it.

This attitude clashes with the modern Disney notion of copyright, but it harmonizes with Alphia Hart's idea of copyright.

= = = = = START PARTIAL REPRINT:

Hart's view of copyright was unique in 1954:

Copyrighting everything you write is a confession that you have little faith in your ability to continue producing salable stuff -- and that there may come a time when you'll have to fall back on your own, protected material to make a living. When we can't produce new copy for The ABERREE, The ABERREE ceases to exist, because we're certain no one wants to read tomorrow what we said yesterday and today.

I reached a similar conclusion a long time ago in making courseware. The restrictions of 'digital rights' get stricter and more tangled every year, but they don't bother me because I have CONFIDENCE in my own ability to produce new images and animations.

Framing it as "rights" to duties: The newer Disney versions of copyright law show the insanity of "inherent rights" more perfectly than other applications. In this dyslogical delusion, every "creative" product has the "inherent right" to be held and sold. When everything is automatically "protected" without any form of registration or payment for title, raw force is the only determinant of title. In plain reality, the Disney law gives total freedom to the mafia with the largest army of consiglieri, which mysteriously and astonishingly turns out to be Disney.

When you start with the GOD-ASSIGNED DUTY to create order and value, the selling is secondary. You can try to sell your created products for money, and customers can buy them. You can't transfer the DUTY OF CREATION to a publisher because the publisher didn't create the item. You can pay the publisher to disseminate your product, or you can persuade the publisher to bet on your product, splitting the profit by negotiation. The publisher is not the owner, it's just providing a service for you.

This is parallel to the sharia paradigm of capitalism, which STRONGLY encourages you to USE your capital instead of hoarding it. Land should be USED for growing crops. Money should be USED to make products for people to USE. Skill should be USED to invent and develop more products and services for others to USE.

= = = = = END PARTIAL REPRINT.

Now I know that this is also parallel to the Soviet notion of copyright as embodied in the inventor certificate. The IP belongs to the state, which will use it for the benefit of the people; but the inventor gets public and permanent recognition plus some of the profits, and doesn't have to bankrupt himself fighting a Disney-style mafia corporation which is guaranteed to win in the end.

Labels: Aberree, Natural law = Sharia law, Natural law = Soviet law

  ¶ 12:57 AM