Remix clone Hacker News

Yes, and notably the source recipe can’t be copyrighted. Trade secrets and recipes are not copyrightable. That’s the point. We have entire vastly profitable industries built around protection of trade secrets, with no copyright in play. Competing to make make the best cola flavored beverage or the best burrito is a thing. Competing to make the best rendition of Snow White, is not. What’s the rub? They don’t seem that different at all.

▲

card_zero a day ago | parent | next [-]

Snow White is not the best example, there are non-Disney versions, like the one with Sigourney Weaver and the one with Chris Hemsworth.

▲

badmintonbaseba 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's a good example of what happens when a copyright is expired.

▲

dcow a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I imagine they're licensed--the original creator or their estate had to be looped in to make them happen, and probably financially benefitted.

▲

card_zero 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The original creator of the German fairy tale?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Snow_White_tale

I see a mention of Ovid ... copyright has probably expired.

▲

slg 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can't explain the exact link, but your repeated and vocal pro-AI stance in this thread feels connected to the way when you got called out for a simple and inconsequential mistake that any of us could make, you immediately doubled down on it all while the truth was a single Google search away.

▲

dcow 21 hours ago | parent [-]

We're talking about copyright in this subthread, in the context of AI. I'm not sure how a copyleft slant implies pro-ai, but whatever. There are a lot of reasons to be dubious about AI. But "AI is going to destroy human creativity and ingenuity" is not one that concerns me. And "society would be better without AI" is not an axiom I hold, so yeah I'll respond to that type of supposition when it's thrown into an otherwise interesting discussion.

I could just be wrong about Snow White's original copyright. As indicated by my use of "I imagine", no I didn't search the origins of it. I'm not seeing a big "double down" moment where I asserted that Snow White is definitely owned by Disney--that would be the cinch. In fact nothing about my reply contradicted the GGP adding that maybe Snow White isn't the best example. Why are you so bothered? Anyway, Snow White doesn't have a recent progenitor then it kinda proves the point that the world works perfectly well in the absence of copyright, and that the ability to freely remix culture is a fundamental human right. TIL that Snow White was originally a German fairytale and I'm relieved that Disney hasn't asserted copyright over it.

	▲	autoexec 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Like many of the disney movies that came from fairy tales the basic story of Snow White isn't copyrighted, but some elements you'd expect in a Snow White story were added by Disney and are protected. The biggest one is the names and personalities given to the seven dwarfs (happy, grumpy, doc, etc). If you made your own snow white movie and included those characters or had them singing "Heigh-Ho" you could expect to get sued into bankruptcy by disney lawyers.

▲

awesome_dude 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How does someone close source a book?

▲

dcow 21 hours ago | parent [-]

If the book is the compiled work, then the source of a book is the author's creative process. And certainly that isn't open to all simply by purchasing the book.

But less obtusely: you don't copyright a book--which is why knowledge, language, literature should not be closed source. We'd have to find a different model to support authors than trying to prevent people from copying books. Patreon style models where you subscribe and get behind the scenes access to the creative process, additional content, early access, etc. seem to work well as do sponsorship models like YT where the more viewers you draw the more you get paid, rather than a fixed fee per individual to watch a video. And, simply pay-what-you-want based models where everyone understands they can contribute in a way that matches the value to them and their means also work. One of the strongest arguments for piracy is that the pirate would never have paid $700 for Photoshop in the first place so the value "lost" isn't real and never would have been realized by the author(s). (Note this argument doesn't work for petty theft of physical property because the thief deprives the owner of tangible property.)

▲

awesome_dude 20 hours ago | parent [-]

There are precisely three models for funding

Private - this includes funding by selling item(s), licensing work, and private equity

State

Charity - this includes volunteers, patrons, donations, sponsorships.

Charity relies on people willing to donate for the betterment of others.

State funding fails because of the political nature of the person holding the purse strings.

Licensing, copyright, physical sales are the only thing that artists have to sell.

You "patreon" style falls somewhere between closed source - you can only access if you buy your way behind the curtain, and charity, where creators have to rely on people donating so that their works can be seen by others (for free)

▲

dcow 20 hours ago | parent [-]

I am supportive of private and charity funding. I think we can do it without a focus restricting copying. I think this because there is precedent with any industry that relies on trade secrets. Once I can copy a Coke with a food printer we'll be having some really weird internal consistency issues with copyright.

	▲	awesome_dude 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not seeing a convincing argument from you other than "Once I bought a book that was public domain"