Inspiration from an old story on Lit

[SimonDoom]

Asking or recommending authors follow the copyright rules of a commercial publishing company or academia is reasonable. Demanding that they do is unreasonable.

I don't agree with this. I don't know why it would be any more unreasonable for Literotica to demand that its members adhere to copyright law than for anyone anywhere in the US to adhere to copyright. If you live in the US and create works in the US, you ARE subject to copyright law, whether you realize it or not. The application of copyright law is not situational; it is universal in the USA.

You may not be a commercial enterprise, as a writer. But presumably Literotica is. Literotica has a strong financial and legal incentive to adhere to copyright law, and that means making sure its authors adhere to copyright law. Otherwise it conceivably faces contributory liability for the copyright infringement of its authors, since it is aware of what they are doing, provides a platform for what they are doing, and derives a financial benefit from what they do.

 

[8letters]

Copyright law doesn't differentiate between application by commercial publishing companies and such enterprises as Literotica. Your sense of what is reasonable notwithstanding, there's no argument that posting to Literotica is any different in copyright law than being published by Simon and Schuster. You don't have a vote in that.

I don't agree with this. I don't know why it would be any more unreasonable for Literotica to demand that its members adhere to copyright law than for anyone anywhere in the US to adhere to copyright. If you live in the US and create works in the US, you ARE subject to copyright law, whether you realize it or not. The application of copyright law is not situational; it is universal in the USA.

You may not be a commercial enterprise, as a writer. But presumably Literotica is. Literotica has a strong financial and legal incentive to adhere to copyright law, and that means making sure its authors adhere to copyright law. Otherwise it conceivably faces contributory liability for the copyright infringement of its authors, since it is aware of what they are doing, provides a platform for what they are doing, and derives a financial benefit from what they do.

You two are absolutely correct about copyright laws applying to Literotica. But the site rules are that copyright laws don't apply to the stories it publishes, except for complete works. I don't make the site rules. If you are unhappy about the site rules, find another porn story website that does follow copyright laws the way you think they should be followed.

Edit: Added "except for complete works"

 

[Bamagan]

You two are absolutely correct about copyright laws applying to Literotica. But the site rules are that copyright laws don't apply to the stories it publishes, except for complete works. I don't make the site rules. If you are unhappy about the site rules, find another porn story website that does follow copyright laws the way you think they should be followed.

Edit: Added "except for complete works"

I am going to regret wading into this, but I don't see anything about complete works being the only things they recognize copyright for. Their story publishing guidelines would seem to express exactly the opposite position. At the very least, any author who publishes here, whether a chapter or a novel, has asserted (rightly or wrongly) that they hold copyright over what they're posting, when they click on 'agree' before submitting a work.

To publish a story on Literotica, you must certify the following stipulations to be true:

• You’re 18 years of age or older and legally able to write, publish, and read erotic material;
• You’re the sole creator of the work, you own the copyright, and you grant Literotica the legal rights to publish the submitted work;
• Your work does not contain any nonpublishable content as defined in our Content Guidelines;
• You grant Literotica the right to use all legal means available to protect your published work from unauthorized use by other parties.

 

[KeithD]

You two are absolutely correct about copyright laws applying to Literotica. But the site rules are that copyright laws don't apply to the stories it publishes, except for complete works. I don't make the site rules. If you are unhappy about the site rules, find another porn story website that does follow copyright laws the way you think they should be followed.

Edit: Added "except for complete works"

Short stories are complete works. Neither Literotica nor you have a vote on what copyright law applies to.

 

[SimonDoom]

You two are absolutely correct about copyright laws applying to Literotica. But the site rules are that copyright laws don't apply to the stories it publishes, except for complete works. I don't make the site rules. If you are unhappy about the site rules, find another porn story website that does follow copyright laws the way you think they should be followed.

Edit: Added "except for complete works"

I think this is a case of the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. You are overinterpreting the absence of clear guidance from the Site on the specific issue and on its seemingly having looked the other way in some cases as evidence of what the Site's policy is. I think it's unclear.

The Site has specifically said that it honors the copyrights of Literotica authors. So I think, in the absence of very clear statements to the contrary, we should assume that this is the way the Site intends to operate and that its failures might simply be oversights rather than manifestations of its intent. Obviously, I don't know for sure. I sent Laurel a message to get an answer on this question.

 

[djrip]

Short stories are complete works. Neither Literotica nor you have a vote on what copyright law applies to.

But copyright law doesn't matter unless you get sued, which seems somewhat unlikely here. Until you get sued, all that matters (for posting here) is Literotica policy.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In the UK, the courts have held that parody can be a valid justification for using copyrighted material without permission if it is done fairly and for the purpose of criticism or ridicule. However, the courts have also held that parody must be original and transformative, and that it must not be used to commercially exploit the copyrighted work.

US law does not automatically prohibit for-profit parody: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

 

[SimonDoom]

US law does not automatically prohibit for-profit parody: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

That's correct. If it's a qualifying parody or transformative work, it doesn't matter whether it's for profit or not.

 

[KeithD]

But copyright law doesn't matter unless you get sued, which seems somewhat unlikely here. Until you get sued, all that matters (for posting here) is Literotica policy.

Do you have any idea how dishonest that sounds? "Fine if you murder someone as long as you don't get caught."

 

[djrip]

Do you have any idea how dishonest that sounds? "Fine if you murder someone as long as you don't get caught."

Copyright is not in the same moral category as murder. Copyright exists only because the state finds value in creating an artificial monopoly on intellectual property to incentive its continued creation. It's a legal concept, not a moral one.

When the expiration period of copyrighted works is extended from 50 years after the death of the creator to 70, or whatever, that doesn't mean that it was moral to utilize things after 50 years before, but suddenly now it's immoral until after 70. What is moral cannot be changed by legislation. It's not about morality, it's about business.

Well, there is ethics in business - stealing something and selling it is unethical. It's causing material harm to the rightful owner. Plagiarizing is unethical. It's lying about what you actually did.

But copyright and creation of content are not so simple, ethically. In the days of Homer, stories were spoken and shared and passed from person to person and changed over time. This is how culture always worked. Copyright was invented in the 1700s. It's not about absolute morality like murder, it's a compromise struck by the state with pros and cons. Society could arguably be better off allowing anyone to invent technology, or write stories, without concern for copyright/patents. More technological innovation, more stories, faster. But society saw that if the creators were not compensated, incentive to create was reduced. So a temporary monopoly was created to balance society's interest in further creation, and creators' interest in compensation for a limited period of time.

Here at lit we have an entire category which is about ignoring copyright - Celebrity and Fan Fiction. Fan Fiction is using copyrighted characters to have fun. It violates copyright. But you are not likely to be sued over it, and site policy allows it. People express themselves freely, riffing off of others, like how culture worked for the first several thousand years. When money is not involved, putting a stop to it becomes less important to the creators. Those who still care can generally succeed in having derivative works taken down. But is it moral for JK Rowling to interfere with high school kids writing HP fic and sharing it with each other in the hall? (For example; I'm not aware of her actually doing this.) It's legal, sure. She has a right to do so. But in my view, it's exceeding the point of copyright, which is to protect the financial incentives to create, and protect a creators brand by preventing rivals from putting things on the market that look like they are from the creator but aren't.

 

[KeithD]

Copyright is not in the same moral category as murder.

One's attitude toward something like copyright and its applicability to them reveals their character. I didn't bother to read the rest of your post. I didn't want to add to the disappointment.

 

[alohadave]

But the site rules are that copyright laws don't apply to the stories it publishes, except for complete works.

That's not how copyright works. It doesn't matter if the site has a policy stating that, copyright applies to the work before it's ever uploaded here, and Lit cannot just decide not to respect the law.

And this is the posted policy on copyright: https://literotica.com/faq/legal/stories-copyright

If there is a statement that states that copyright doesn't apply, I'd like to see it.

Now, are there any realistic chances of someone bringing a copyright infringement suit and naming Lit in the suit? Not really. So it's something they can ignore, until it does happen, or it happens to another site.

 

[djrip]

One's attitude toward something like copyright and its applicability to them reveals their character. I didn't bother to read the rest of your post. I didn't want to add to the disappointment.

It'll be waiting for you It you ever decide to base your disappointment on what I *actually said*

I don't even write fan fic but I have no problem with those who do.

 

[djrip]

That's not how copyright works. It doesn't matter if the site has a policy stating that, copyright applies to the work before it's ever uploaded here, and Lit cannot just decide not to respect the law.

And this is the posted policy on copyright: https://literotica.com/faq/legal/stories-copyright

If there is a statement that states that copyright doesn't apply, I'd like to see it.

Now, are there any realistic chances of someone bringing a copyright infringement suit and naming Lit in the suit? Not really. So it's something they can ignore, until it does happen, or it happens to another site.

They can and have, in the Fan Fiction category at least.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It'll be waiting for you It you ever decide to base your disappointment on what I *actually said*

"I didn't bother to read the rest of your post" is Keith's standard line for when he did read the rest of your post but doesn't have a rebuttal to it.

 

[KeithD]

Well, no it isn't Bram, and I see no reason for you to be showing up with snottiness. I guess that means you support minor dishonesty--even when inflicted on another author. I didn't read the rest of the post. Claiming you know I did is an unnecessary and malicious lie. I didn't want to get into arguing over the thought that violating a fellow author's proprietary rights is no big deal if it's only done on Literotica. Your passive aggressiveness deserves response, though, I think.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

What is moral cannot be changed by legislation.

I believe you are being too idealistic in this statement. Morality is a fluid category. It changes with the times, with the process of civilization, the prosperity of the society, and the level of state organization. For example: Once, the eye for an eye approach was considered justified and moral. If someone killed a member of your family you would have been justified in doing the same with a member of the perpetrator's family. Blood feud was very prominent in certain cultures. In some cultures, it still exists even today.
The morality of today's society is appalled by that concept, of course, as civilization has progressed and our mindsets have evolved. However, there is a lot of historical evidence that certain archaic moral concepts were actually changed by strict legislation. It took time, sometimes years, sometimes even decades or centuries, but it happened. So yeah, legislation influences morality. It is not the only thing that does, but it is certainly one of the important factors.

That being said, I believe your example is very good in describing a piece of legislation that doesn't have anything to do with morality. Changing the copyright period from 50 to 70 years after the author's death is just some arbitrary line that someone drew based on financial gain, not because it has anything to do with morality. The same thing can be said about many of the copyright policies. Many of them represent some arbitrary lines and not something that is based on morality.

 

[djrip]

I believe you are being too idealistic in this statement. Morality is a fluid category. It changes with the times, with the process of civilization, the prosperity of the society, and the level of state organization. For example: Once, the eye for an eye approach was considered justified and moral. If someone killed a member of your family you would have been justified in doing the same with a member of the perpetrator's family. Blood feud was very prominent in certain cultures. In some cultures, it still exists even today.
The morality of today's society is appalled by that concept, of course, as civilization has progressed and our mindsets have evolved. However, there is a lot of historical evidence that certain archaic moral concepts were actually changed by strict legislation. It took time, sometimes years, sometimes even decades or centuries, but it happened. So yeah, legislation influences morality. It is not the only thing that does, but it is certainly one of the important factors.

That being said, I believe your example is very good in describing a piece of legislation that doesn't have anything to do with morality. Changing the copyright period from 50 to 70 years after the author's death is just some arbitrary line that someone drew based on financial gain, not because it has anything to do with morality. The same thing can be said about many of the copyright policies. Many of them represent some arbitrary lines and not something that is based on morality.

I do agree morality changes with the times, as culture evolves. Just not at the stroke of a pen with legislation. ( I agree good legislation can push a population towards a moral position, but did the legislation make that position moral? Or just push the population toward what was already the truly moral position? A question for Kant, perhaps.) For instance, I think slavery was immoral both before and after emancipation. But I wouldn't judge a person from the 1700s for using certain racial language the same way I would a person today using it.

 

[djrip]

Well, no it isn't Bram, and I see no reason for you to be showing up with snottiness. I guess that means you support minor dishonesty--even when inflicted on another author. I didn't read the rest of the post. Claiming you know I did is an unnecessary and malicious lie. I didn't want to get into arguing over the thought that violating a fellow author's proprietary rights is no big deal if it's only done on Literotica. Your passive aggressiveness deserves response, though, I think.

If only my post had been about that. Well I guess a little of it was if that's what you think fan fiction is.

 

[8letters]

One's attitude toward something like copyright and its applicability to them reveals their character. I didn't bother to read the rest of your post. I didn't want to add to the disappointment.

Speaking of revealing one's attitude.

I'm not saying I approve of Literotica's ignoring of copyright laws. I'd be totally fine with them announcing that they are closing the C&FF category and would no longer publish stories derived from other author's stories. I'm not wild about noncon stories, and would be happy if they stopped publishing them. But I recognize that the site rules are what the site rules are, and, to me, when I publish a story here, I'm tacitly approving the site rules that I'm aware of.

I see a huge conflict between you declaring that violating copyright law is lawlessness akin to committing murder and you publishing stories here. If you really think Literotica is aiding and abetting illegal and immoral behavior by publishing stories that violate copyright law, then take your stories down and get the fuck out of here. Otherwise, you come across as a massive hypocrite.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I do agree morality changes with the times, as culture evolves. Just not at the stroke of a pen with legislation. ( I agree good legislation can push a population towards a moral position, but did the legislation make that position moral? Or just push the population toward what was already the truly moral position? A question for Kant, perhaps.) For instance, I think slavery was immoral both before and after emancipation. But I wouldn't judge a person from the 1700s for using certain racial language the same way I would a person today using it.

It seems to me that you believe in moral universalism or moral objectivism as it is also called. I can't really say that I am a supporter of that school of thought, although I do acknowledge the validity of your position in that regard. Either way, trying to counter your moral stance would lead us into a deep philosophical discussion.

I must say that it would be a very interesting topic to discuss, one that would be a refreshment from the multitude of repetitive threads where we keep reiterating the same old stuff, or the threads where we talk about the most mundane and pedestrian things.

 

[djrip]

It seems to me that you believe in moral universalism or moral objectivism as it is also called. I can't really say that I am a supporter of that school of thought, although I do acknowledge the validity of your position in that regard. Either way, trying to counter your moral stance would lead us into a deep philosophical discussion.

I must say that it would be a very interesting topic to discuss, one that would be a refreshment from the multitude of repetitive threads where we keep reiterating the same old stuff, or the threads where we talk about the most mundane and pedestrian things.

I think it's complicated! Like take Aztec human sacrifice. Or tribal arranged marriage. They both seem immoral, but within their culture it is accepted. I'm not sure I should try to impose my own morality on an alien culture if I show up there like an anthropologist. Or maybe I should, I don't know. Could cause a lot of chaotic unforseen effects.

 

[KeithD]

I see a huge conflict between you declaring that violating copyright law is lawlessness akin to committing murder and you publishing stories here. If you really think Literotica is aiding and abetting illegal and immoral behavior by publishing stories that violate copyright law, then take your stories down and get the fuck out of here. Otherwise, you come across as a massive hypocrite.

The comparison is extreme to make a point. Like pregnancy, there's no "sort of" or "just a little crime" in the application of copyright law.

Where have I posted that Literotica is aiding and abetting anything? That said, Literotica doesn't determine what the applicability of copyright law is. It doesn't have a vote in that and neither do you. I've made my choices on where to publish my stories with open eyes and you can take your suggestion I should stop posting them here and stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

[KeithD]

If only my post had been about that. Well I guess a little of it was if that's what you think fan fiction is.

I haven't weighed in on what I think fan faction is. I haven't even given much thought to what fan fiction is or should be, so I'm not going down that pathway with you.

 

[djrip]

I haven't weighed in on what I think fan faction is. I haven't even given much thought to what fan fiction is or should be, so I'm not going down that pathway with you.

And you don't need to! But you claim to not want to read my post because you don't want to be 'disappointed.' I'm fairly sure you are more disappointed by what you assume I wrote than you would be by what I actually wrote. So if you truly want less disappointment, read it. Then, certainly, decline to discuss fan fiction if you prefer, I have no desire to force you to do that.