Abandoned series.

[AwkwardlySet]

There are a lot of both good and faulty arguments being thrown around about what is right and what is wrong in this case.

I am too lazy to elaborate right now (might do it later) but there is only one good reason why writing fanfic is different/better than taking/continuing someone's Lit story without permission. When you take the story of a Lit author without permission to build upon it, to continue the story, or whatever, you are stealing from US, from authors just like you and me who are either struggling to succeed or are simply writing for fun. When you write fanfic, you are stealing from THEM, the authors who likely got rich from their work and are famous on top of it, and some feel that this difference gives them certain justification, speaking from the point of view of morality.
All other arguments are pure sophism, in my opinion.

 

[alohadave]

There are a lot of both good and faulty arguments being thrown around about what is right and what is wrong in this case.

I am too lazy to elaborate right now (might do it later) but there is only one good reason why writing fanfic is different/better than taking/continuing someone's Lit story without permission. When you take the story of a Lit author without permission to build upon it, to continue the story, or whatever, you are stealing from US, from authors just like you and me who are either struggling to succeed or are simply writing for fun. When you write fanfic, you are stealing from THEM, the authors who likely got rich from their work and are famous on top of it, and some feel that this difference gives them certain justification, speaking from the point of view of morality.
All other arguments are pure sophism, in my opinion.

i don't think your argument is much better, really. If the only difference is that you feel a kinship with the authors here, then you are saying that it's fine to infringe on people you either don't know, or who you feel have 'got theirs'.

Wealth and status of the author should not be the determining factor as to whether it's okay to infringe.

If you want to do fanfic, you will find a justification that works for you.

 

[SimonDoom]

There are a lot of both good and faulty arguments being thrown around about what is right and what is wrong in this case.

I am too lazy to elaborate right now (might do it later) but there is only one good reason why writing fanfic is different/better than taking/continuing someone's Lit story without permission. When you take the story of a Lit author without permission to build upon it, to continue the story, or whatever, you are stealing from US, from authors just like you and me who are either struggling to succeed or are simply writing for fun. When you write fanfic, you are stealing from THEM, the authors who likely got rich from their work and are famous on top of it, and some feel that this difference gives them certain justification, speaking from the point of view of morality.
All other arguments are pure sophism, in my opinion.

To be clear, I am not justifying fanfiction. My point is that even if one DOES, for the sake or argument, think fanfiction based on famous works is OK, it doesn't follow that writing sequels to the stories by Literotica authors is OK. These things are not alike, and the rules acceptable in one case are not necessarily acceptable in the other.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

i don't think your argument is much better, really. If the only difference is that you feel a kinship with the authors here, then you are saying that it's fine to infringe on people you either don't know, or who you feel have 'got theirs'.

Wealth and status of the author should not be the determining factor as to whether it's okay to infringe.

If you want to do fanfic, you will find a justification that works for you.

You misunderstand me somewhat. I don't think either is okay. I am just saying that this kinship is the only (sort of) valid argument I see in the sense of difference. It is nowhere near good enough for me to consider writing fanfic. If anything, I was making the argument that there isn't really a difference between fanfic and taking a Lit story, from my point of view.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

To be clear, I am not justifying fanfiction. My point is that even if one DOES, for the sake or argument, think fanfiction based on famous works is OK, it doesn't follow that writing sequels to the stories by Literotica authors is OK. These things are not alike, and the rules acceptable in one case are not necessarily acceptable in the other.

I understand. I was making the opposite argument - that they are very much alike and that the same rules apply, except for the kinship with other Lit authors or authors of the same caliber.

 

[alohadave]

If anything, I was making the argument that there isn't really a difference between fanfic and taking a Lit story, from my point of view.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I missed what you were trying to say

 

[SimonDoom]

I understand. I was making the opposite argument - that they are very much alike and that the same rules apply, except for the kinship with other Lit authors or authors of the same caliber.

I understand that argument as well. They're not necessarily contradictory arguments.

One can say, It's wrong to write sequels to Literotica stories without the authors' permission, and for the same reason it's wrong to write sequels to the stories of famous authors, and simultaneously take the position, But even if you (wrongly) believe that it's OK to write fanfiction based on famous stories, it doesn't follow that it's OK to write sequels to Literotica authors.

The best argument--not a great argument, but an argument--for the acceptability of fanfiction is an implied consent argument. Whatever one thinks about it, the fact is that it's a very big thing that everyone knows about, and there are some authors who are on record as expressing a "Eh, whatever" attitude about it. Some authors, on the other hand, are very much NOT that way.

The second best argument is the minimal impact argument. Publishing a free sequel on a fanfiction story site where you make no money, based on a famous story, is like a pinprick on an elephant. It has no real negative consequence. This does not apply to writing a sequel to a story by an unknown Literotica author who makes no money off the story. I'm not saying it's a great argument--it's not--but it's something. If you feel strongly that it's stealing, you're not going to be convinced; to you it will be like the burglar saying, "But I only steal from big houses, and I only take the cheap cutlery."

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I understand that argument as well. They're not necessarily contradictory arguments.

One can say, It's wrong to write sequels to Literotica stories without the authors' permission, and for the same reason it's wrong to write sequels to the stories of famous authors, and simultaneously take the position, But even if you (wrongly) believe that it's OK to write fanfiction based on famous stories, it doesn't follow that it's OK to write sequels to Literotica authors.

The best argument--not a great argument, but an argument--for the acceptability of fanfiction is an implied consent argument. Whatever one thinks about it, the fact is that it's a very big thing that everyone knows about, and there are some authors who are on record as expressing a "Eh, whatever" attitude about it. Some authors, on the other hand, are very much NOT that way.

The second best argument is the minimal impact argument. Publishing a free sequel on a fanfiction story site where you make no money, based on a famous story, is like a pinprick on an elephant. It has no real negative consequence. This does not apply to writing a sequel to a story by an unknown Literotica author who makes no money off the story. I'm not saying it's a great argument--it's not--but it's something. If you feel strongly that it's stealing, you're not going to be convinced; to you it will be like the burglar saying, "But I only steal from big houses, and I only take the cheap cutlery."

Most of those arguments I see as just decent rationalizations.
For example, I've seen an argument somewhere that writing fanfic is better because everyone reading it automatically knows that the world and the characters (unless you are making some of your own characters) aren't yours, so you aren't trying to fool anyone with it. But that is no different than continuing someone's Lit story and fully crediting the author and providing a link to the original story. Many such arguments fall apart when properly analyzed.

I understand that not everyone sees these things the same and I agree that these discussions are useful when talking about the moral aspects of writing. I also believe that people should refrain from using harsh words and condemning some actions before they are absolutely sure where they stand.

 

[lilshymynx]

I can't speak to all fandoms, but I will say that at least when it comes to video games and their associated IPs, Simon's point about them seeing it as a positive is absolutely accurate.

ElectronicArts, one of the gaming industry's largest players position is:

"EA is amazed by the passion players have for our games, and we’re always excited to see the creativity that comes from our community."

That quote is directly from their IP use guidelines located on their website. Granted most of that use comes in the form of videos on YouTube, livestreaming on platforms like Twitch, or game information websites, it also extends to the creation of fanart and fanfic. Most game development studios have similar policies, which is what allows the creation of gaming content by fans to be a multi-million, if not billion, dollar a year industry. Companies like EA allow you to monetize their content so long as its not done directly, but passive income like ads on a YT video or banner adds on a website are perfectly acceptable.

Bethesda Softworks, creators of The Elder Scrolls and Fallout franchises, has a similar view posted on their Community Standards page:

"Our community has some of the most creative and talented members creating and sharing content, which includes not just your fan art and cosplay, but also your stories, screenshots, mods, and a multitude of other mediums."

Bethesda's IP policy is not as neatly codified into a single page like EA's, but they do also have policies posted on their website for the creation of game mods, videos, etc.

To use a Literotica example, AwkwardMD's story Dark Matter, which 8letters keeps bringing up, is set the world created by Bioware for their the online game Star Wars: The Old Republic. ElectronicArts owns Bioware, so the policy above applies to AMD's story. Posting it here, on Lit, is perfectly within the terms of the use policy, but putting it up for sale on Smashwords or hiding it behind a paywall on Patreon wouldn't be. She could, however, host it on a site of her own which had banner ads.

The point being, these are conscious positions and decisions taken by the IP holders to allow their creations to be used by fans. That permission is not assumed, contrary to the "running abandoned car parked on the street" metaphor. Nobody needs to "leave a note on the dashboard".

 

[SimonDoom]

This analogy has a big hole, as big as the black hole of Calcutta. This is an open platform, so there can't be private houses. Everything goes down in the open space, on the street, where beggars, street artists, and hawkers do their thing.

One of the hawkers puts a simple watch on the sidewalk with a crazy high price tag and waits for buyers, but no one's biting--for years. The only offer he gets is from another hawker who wants to borrow it for a few days. The hawker even leaves the watch and the rest of his goods unattended at night--no worries.

If a passerby grabs the watch and scratches the name on the back, they can take it; it's the consensus.

Again--if you want to exist in your own unique moral universe, fine. Nobody can stop you. But what you're saying isn't the law, it isn't how most people see things, it isn't how the Site does things, it isn't based on any widely accepted ethical tradition concerning the use of stories, and it has no relevance to anything. You keep using metaphors that almost nobody else agrees with. That alone OUGHT to tell you something: other people don't see this the way you do.

This isn't an open platform. When you join this platform, you do so subject to the rules and guidelines of which the Site puts you on written notice. And in this case the Site makes clear that authors retain their copyright ownership of their stories. As a user, you have NO right in the stories other than to read them. You have no reasonable expectation that you have any other right. There is no equivalent here to the property doctrine of adverse possession, or finder's keepers, or salvage, or anything like that. You use this site subject to its rules, which are available for everyone to see. Period.

 

[SimonDoom]

The only thing it tells me is that the law is for lawyers and art is for artists. I assume you're a lawyer. Thank heavens we're NOT in the same universe.

Every artist I've known who makes a living from their art, and I've known quite a few, cares deeply about what their legal rights are in their art. In fact, I don't know anybody in any walk of life who doesn't care about what their legal rights are. It's only when we're talking about OTHER people's rights that we affect the attitude that the law and rights don't matter.

 

[jhealy55]

Think that Awkward is on the right tack. The only legitimate reason for creating any rule that limits individual freedom is that it encourages/discourages in a healthy way.

What some miss, and others are willfully blind to, is that authors have an investment in the continuity of the world and characters within their work. There are deliberate choices made about each element that make the story more immersive and believable to the reader. Like the ability to render a greater number of marks for a painter, this is one of the aspects that separates writers on the middle part of the learning curve. Do the parameters of your world and character development keep shifting in inconsistent and jarring ways after the reader has accepted the premise in which they initially existed.

I loved drawing superheroes as a kid and obsessed over getting my renderings as close as possible to the originals. Most other boys thought it was cool I could do it so well at the age we all were, but there was always some guy who would ask, "Wow! Can you draw Superman boning Wonder Woman!?!" The short answer was, "yeah...probably", but the truth was, it was 180 degrees from who those characters were to me, and the rest of the fans who followed them. It was the difference between a shirt bought at a Disney Park on vacation, with perfect character integrity, and a cheap knockoff that was visibly wrong from 100 feet away.

So, anyone who puts time, effort and care into their stories wants to know they aren't going to see them passed around for cheap thrills by someone who has no investment, or understanding, of what made that character and their situation a valuable read to their fans.

Allowing others to use them however they want here will only discourage participation by those who care about their work. You will quickly arrive at that gutter full of second rate smut, that no one cares about protecting, after just a few cycles.

People change their investing behavior based on the stability of the market. Most scarcity environments have little to do with resources and more to do with property rights. If it takes 10 seconds to take something that takes 10 years to build or grow until it reaches full value, no one plants or builds in those places.

 

[Sinstories]

The only thing it tells me is that the law is for lawyers and art is for artists. I assume you're a lawyer. Thank heavens we're NOT in the same universe.

The only thing your statement tells me is that the age old saying, "Rationalizations are more important than sex. When was the last time you went a week without a rationalization?" is true.

Trying to lump SimonDoom in with lawyers, who you are assuming are bad in the eyes of those you are trying to convince, is just your way of rationalizing your desire to steal.

Your entire premise that someone who posts a story on lit does so with an implicit understanding that it is no longer theirs just shows you did not bother to read the TOS you agreed to when you registered your account. Doesn't matter how many irrelevant ways you try to rationalize it, it is still untrue, period. By your rationalization if I can pick the lock on your door or just kick the door in, I can take anything from your house that I want, simply because I can and you didn't protect it well enough.

 

[KeithD]

The only thing it tells me is that the law is for lawyers and art is for artists. I assume you're a lawyer. Thank heavens we're NOT in the same universe.

Art is for artists who have a vested interest in the proprietary rights to what they create--and if they are socialized artists, they will have the same regard for the proprietary rights of other artists to what they create that they have toward their own rights.

Are you perhaps just jerking us around here?

 

[jhealy55]

KeithD. Either it's just garden variety trolling, or the same delusional mindset of those wearing an black anarchy t-shirt, skinny jeans and Doc Martens who have a meltdown when no one shows up to restock the supermarket they've been looting for the last three days, once all the 'good' stuff is gone, or gone bad.

by the time they figure out that anarchy doesn't mean, "I get to do whatever I want while everyone else keeps doing the right thing" it's already too late. waaay too late.

I could tell you exactly how the story ends for them, but it's a bit graphic to describe for anyone who drops by for a literary discussion and the lunch hour is, or will soon be, upon most folks in the states.

 

[Sinstories]

KeithD. Either it's just garden variety trolling, or the same delusional mindset of those wearing an black anarchy t-shirt, skinny jeans and Doc Martens who have a meltdown when no one shows up to restock the supermarket they've been looting for the last three days, once all the 'good' stuff is gone, or gone bad.

by the time they figure out that anarchy doesn't mean, "I get to do whatever I want while everyone else keeps doing the right thing" it's already too late. waaay too late.

I could tell you exactly how the story ends for them, but it's a bit graphic to describe for anyone who drops by for a literary discussion and the lunch hour is, or will soon be, upon most folks in the states.

Yes, much like the idea that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Unfortunately I don't believe he is a troll, the number of people who actually believe that way is frightening.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I've only been around this joint about an hour a day for the past week or more. I don't troll, not even when I fish. I state opinions, and mine are as valid as anyone else's—sale by date or otherwise.

Come for the high minded ethical debate, but by all means hang around for the trolling. Its kept us going long past the sell-by on this thread.

 

[Sinstories]

One need not delve into exhaustingly long stories to assess the quality of another's writing; this can be readily observed in their social media posts.

Narcissistic writing is marked by the writer's compulsive tendency to inject themselves and their embarrassingly simplistic worldview into every sentence they write. unfortunately, social media is often fertile ground for socially detached people who eagerly consume such content.

Those writers seldom cherish the written word; to them, stringing together sentences is merely a means to gain attention, flattery, and maybe scrape a few bucks. So it's unsurprising that they consistently prioritize phony ethics over genuine artistic expression.

Exceptional stories and characters are timeless; they will prevail with or without permission. Narcissists are not.

ROFL...and the world is full of people who justify their anti-social or illegal actions to themselves by convincing themselves that they are intellectually or morally superior to those they steal from.

 

[jhealy55]

I've only been around this joint about an hour a day for the past week or more. I don't troll, not even when I fish. I state opinions, and mine are as valid as anyone else's—sale by date or otherwise.

Absolutely. Never meant to imply that you were. If you look has what's kept the thread alive while you've been away, its been a mix of the two.

 

[MillieDynamite]

OIC

Absolutely. Never meant to imply that you were. If you look has what's kept the thread alive while you've been away, its been a mix of the two.

 

[StillStunned]

I have several dozen abandoned stories in my Drafts folder.

For the record, I don't want anyone to continue them.

 

[jhealy55]

Irony would be back here begging for someone to help me get a dormant series going again if I'm not back to writing soon. Posting on AH has been most of my output over the last few weeks.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Irony would be back here begging for someone to help me get a dormant series going again if I'm not back to writing soon. Posting on AH has been most of my output over the last few weeks.

At least that shows you're alive .

 

[jhealy55]

At least that shows you're alive .

Thank you for the encouragement.

Any interest in writing a blurb for my latest work?

Working title is-

"No YOU Suck!: A collection of strongly worded missives to people who are wrong on the internet"

I'm up to 120K words and am thinking about self-publishing as I haven't gotten any bites yet from the samples I've sent out.

 

[ElectricBlue]

"No YOU Suck!: A collection of strongly worded missives to people who are wrong on the internet"

I'm up to 120K words and am thinking about self-publishing as I haven't gotten any bites yet from the samples I've sent out.

Haha! I suspect your targets don't want too much disclosure of trade secrets!