The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

What would it profit any publishing company to deter the creators of original works?

They wouldn't need to deter or encourage as the creators would be powerless ...  they'd just wait till they create something and then steal it.

Once Uncle Pat's James Bond series has finished, Rebellion could still collect it into a GN and then have two choices, to pay Uncle Pat or to not pay him. Which option would make more sense if they want to keep him on board?

Why would they need to keep him 'on board' if they can just appropriate anything he produces, either for another publisher or self-published? Why would they invest in him at all by publishing it in the first place if they weren't going to have any exclusivity?


You write - how would you feel if one of your stories was published, became hugely successful, made into movies etc making millions for a bunch of talentless businessmen, and you received no money or recognition?

To your first point, protection would come from private law contract. No money, no work. Companies willing to enter into such contracts would be preferred over companies that just exploit.

To your second point, also as above plus the benefit of being the first to market with original content.

To your third point, I write because I enjoy it. In your unlikely scenario I'd be quite content. If my name was credited then I'd be able to make a living at conventions, signings and so on. If it was credited to someone else I'd be able to sue for fraud. If it wasn't credited at all I'd make it widely known that this was my work in order to undertake my first option and secure contracts with a more honourable company to produce either an "authorised" version or sequels. On an idealistic note, it's the work itself that matters, not the money. To bring enjoyment to so many people would be its own reward. I was born with nothing, have lived my life with enough to survive and I'll die with nothing - but I'd be content to leave such a popular legacy behind me.

[sheridan]

The SuperMaguffin2000:



Kopyleft 2019

Looks more like the SuperMaguffin 1900 to me!

[sheridan]

True, ideas as a thing cannot be protected. They cannot be property. Inherently, once communicated, they are in the wild (hmm... there's a future shock in that).

I can think of two Future-Shocks along similar lines off the top of my head - one with art by Trev Goring, the other written by Neil Gaiman.

[sheridan]

Anybody else think it's strange that there's a page of discussion on IP on the Political Thread at the same time that the news has been taken over with reports on the Supreme Court deliberating and the beginning of the conference season?

[CalHab]

IP exists in order to incentivise creative individuals to continue to create things.

The problem is that it is abused. But that does not affect the underlying rationale or reality of it.

True, ideas as a thing cannot be protected. They cannot be property. Inherently, once communicated, they are in the wild (hmm... there's a future shock in that). IP law is, therefore, an artificial construct designed to creat and attribute value to them.

To that extent, they are property. But only because the law says that they are.

In fact, the alternative to most of the laws to which Shark objects, should they be scrapped, is anarchy. I disagree with a lot of posts here for that reason.

But that is not to say things should not be questioned or unchanged. The rules are good for all, but only if the rules are fair. The problem is that the rules are often rigged. But that does not mean they should be scrapped or sacrificed on the altar of principle.

I don't know where you think you are, coming here with your nuanced, balanced and considered views. Pfffh.

[CalHab]

Anybody else think it's strange that there's a page of discussion on IP on the Political Thread at the same time that the news has been taken over with reports on the Supreme Court deliberating and the beginning of the conference season?

It's been a quiet week, to be honest.

Apart from the PM being exposed for giving gifts of government money to friends.

Apart from the government looking like losing their court case by acting dishonestly to stymie democracy.

Apart from the opposition collapsing into in-fighting.

Apart from the EU pointing out, again, that the UK isn't presenting any serious Brexit proposals, despite their grandstanding.

Apart from the US President using aid to pressure a foreign leader to intervene in US domestic politics against a rival.

As I say, it's been a quiet week.

[The Legendary Shark]

Good post, DocX. As I'm obviously coming at this subject from an anarchist perspective I don't agree with everything you say but I'm glad that, whilst we are not on the same page, we are at least in the same book. Unless that book's under copyright, that is

[TordelBack]

As I say, it's been a quiet week.

It's a photocopier jam of shit.  A shitjam, if you will.

But I think the unanimous UK Supreme Court ruling on Johnson's prorogation just leapfrogged right to the top of the roller-clearing queue. Go, law!

[Jim_Campbell]

Supreme Court: "The PM's advice to her majesty was unlawful, void, and of no effect... The prorogation was also unlawful, void, and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued."

It's worth mentioning that the rulings of the Supreme Court were unanimous. No one... NO ONE, not even the most optimistic legal commentators thought that would be the case.

In any normal circumstances, Johnson's position would be untenable and he'd be gone by the end of the day. I have little doubt he'll be in front of a lectern in the next thirty minutes going "FWAH! Enemies of democracy! Do or die!" and emphatically NOT going.

[Tiplodocus]

Sadly, that seems about right. How did we get here?

[TordelBack]

That schtick will play well with the brain-dead and the far right (quite a simple Venn diagram, that), but I'd have some hope that the more Lawful Evil elements of the Tory party will actually balk at swallowing his effluent this time. They have to know that it utterly contradicts any small-c-conservative principles they still might have: ignoring the clearly-stated rule of law in favour of claims to popular support is literal fascism.

[Richard]

The Telegraph's headline is some shite about usurper remainer judges overturning the will of the people. 

(By saying the unelected executive can't suspend the elected Parliament to avoid scrutiny.)

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

   Priti Patel: Until Brexit is fully operational, we are vulnerable. The Rebel Alliance is too well equipped. They're more dangerous than you realize!

    Domic Raab: Dangerous to your constituency, Commander. Not to this government.

    Patel: The Rebellion will continue to gain a support in the Parliament, until...

    Boris Johnson: [walking in with Rees Mog] Parliament will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word from the Lord Advocate that we can prorogue Parliament permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.

    Raab: That's impossible! How will you maintain control without democracy?

    BJ: The Secretaries of State now have direct control over their portfolios. Fear will keep the local people in line. Fear of hard Brexit.

    Patel: And what of the Rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of the law on proroguing it is possible — however unlikely — that they might find a weakness and exploit it.

    Rees Mog: The law you refer to will soon be back in our hands.

    Raab: Any attack made by the Rebels against this government would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they've obtained. This Tories are now the ultimate power in Europe! I suggest we abuse it.

    Rees Mog: Don't be too proud of this geopolitical terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a country is insignificant next to the power of the Constitution.

    Raab: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Rees Mog. [Mog walks toward Raab, then slowly raises his hand] Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up better legal advice or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebels' legal argumen–– [grasps his throat as if he is being choked]

    Mog: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

  BJ: Enough of this. Rees Mog, release him!

    Mog: As you wish. [drops his hand and Raab's head hits the table as he regains his breath]

    BJ: This bickering is pointless. Rees Mog will provide us with the core of the the Rebel legal case by the time prorogation is operational. We will then crush the Rebellion with one swift stroke.

[IndigoPrime]

Andrew Bridgen (Con MP for North West Leicestershire) has been quoted on the BBC as stating "Parliament is holding our democracy to ransom". That's... quite the take.

[Theblazeuk]

How did we get here?

This guy.

Those people.

The Tories.