If any of my arguments have been based on obligation, they certainly haven’t been based on obligation to Shakespeare; more like a general obligation to free culture.
Even though it wasn’t free culture but “use-public-domain-for-inspiration-then-paywall” culture that actually produced Hamlet? One could just as well argue that he has an obligation to that culture, and he’d betraying the spirit of paywalling if he did not paywall...
I still don’t know what point you’re trying to make.
My points are roughly as follows.
Either one accepts the division between “free culture” and “non-free culture” as an acceptable one, or one doesn’t.
Since you seem to believe in such a division, then you should accept that people are actually freer to put paywalls on things they derive from “free culture” (since it’s free for them to use however they like), but they may suffer restrictions when they derive stuff from “non-free culture” (since it’s not free for people to use however they like).
You seem to be doing it the other way around, which seems inconsistent for what the words “free” and “non-free” actually mean.
Currently I’m favorable to the idea that all culture should be free—I also understand (though I disagree with) the copyright-monopolist position. Your position however is one I don’t understand, as it effectively argues that people can produce words to be paid for, but only if they derive them from non-free works. If such a position became law, it would tremendously increase the power of copyright-holders as they would then possess even more significant power over other future profit-seekers. Future profit seekers couldn’t even begin a work based wholly on public domain ideas, they would have to seek the patronage of a previous copyright-holder.
The idea that derivatives of free works should be required to also be free is arguable but definitely coherent. It’s like the GNU Public Licence applied to works by law or custom instead of by their authors.
It could work like this—for the first 50 years after an original work is published, you have to pay the creator to make copies, including for derivative works. After 50 years you have the additional option of a GPL-like license—you can create free derivatives—but you can still create copy-restricted derivatives if you pay the owner of the original. After the decline and fall of the country, empire or planet housing its copyright registration, or 1000 years, whichever comes first, it becomes public domain.
You seem to be conflating believing that a distinction exists (which it obviously does) with believing that it is acceptable. I believe the former but not the latter.
Your position however is one I don’t understand, as it effectively argues that people can produce words to be paid for, but only if they derive them from non-free works.
Please stop flattening ‘specific free works vs amorphous mass of cultural inspirations’ to ‘public domain vs copyright’. You’re arguing against a straw man here. What makes a difference is the specific (and the implicit ‘with conscious intent’) vs the amorphous. The ‘mass of cultural inspirations’ has enough free works in it.
If such a position became law...
I never argued for that. Many things are better enforced by social norms than by law.
You seem to be doing it the other way around, which seems inconsistent for what the words “free” and “non-free” actually mean.
Caspian notes the existence of sharealike licences. It’s not some radical new incomprehensible idea, it’s an old way to keep the ‘free’ meme propagating. There is no contradiction in imposing restrictions upon future authors to ensure that future readers keep getting free stuff.
Future profit seekers couldn’t even begin a work based wholly on public domain ideas, they would have to seek the patronage of a previous copyright-holder.
This is only tangentially related, but people keep bringing it up so I better address this. I’m not opposing making a profit, I’m opposing making a profit by asking the readers to pay a fee in order to gain access to the work. The two may generally be seen as the same thing, but they really aren’t. (Said the same thing in reply to another comment on this thread right now.)
Even though it wasn’t free culture but “use-public-domain-for-inspiration-then-paywall” culture that actually produced Hamlet? One could just as well argue that he has an obligation to that culture, and he’d betraying the spirit of paywalling if he did not paywall...
My points are roughly as follows.
Either one accepts the division between “free culture” and “non-free culture” as an acceptable one, or one doesn’t.
Since you seem to believe in such a division, then you should accept that people are actually freer to put paywalls on things they derive from “free culture” (since it’s free for them to use however they like), but they may suffer restrictions when they derive stuff from “non-free culture” (since it’s not free for people to use however they like).
You seem to be doing it the other way around, which seems inconsistent for what the words “free” and “non-free” actually mean.
Currently I’m favorable to the idea that all culture should be free—I also understand (though I disagree with) the copyright-monopolist position. Your position however is one I don’t understand, as it effectively argues that people can produce words to be paid for, but only if they derive them from non-free works. If such a position became law, it would tremendously increase the power of copyright-holders as they would then possess even more significant power over other future profit-seekers. Future profit seekers couldn’t even begin a work based wholly on public domain ideas, they would have to seek the patronage of a previous copyright-holder.
The idea that derivatives of free works should be required to also be free is arguable but definitely coherent. It’s like the GNU Public Licence applied to works by law or custom instead of by their authors.
It could work like this—for the first 50 years after an original work is published, you have to pay the creator to make copies, including for derivative works. After 50 years you have the additional option of a GPL-like license—you can create free derivatives—but you can still create copy-restricted derivatives if you pay the owner of the original. After the decline and fall of the country, empire or planet housing its copyright registration, or 1000 years, whichever comes first, it becomes public domain.
You seem to be conflating believing that a distinction exists (which it obviously does) with believing that it is acceptable. I believe the former but not the latter.
Please stop flattening ‘specific free works vs amorphous mass of cultural inspirations’ to ‘public domain vs copyright’. You’re arguing against a straw man here. What makes a difference is the specific (and the implicit ‘with conscious intent’) vs the amorphous. The ‘mass of cultural inspirations’ has enough free works in it.
I never argued for that. Many things are better enforced by social norms than by law.
Caspian notes the existence of sharealike licences. It’s not some radical new incomprehensible idea, it’s an old way to keep the ‘free’ meme propagating. There is no contradiction in imposing restrictions upon future authors to ensure that future readers keep getting free stuff.
This is only tangentially related, but people keep bringing it up so I better address this. I’m not opposing making a profit, I’m opposing making a profit by asking the readers to pay a fee in order to gain access to the work. The two may generally be seen as the same thing, but they really aren’t. (Said the same thing in reply to another comment on this thread right now.)