I absolutely agree, of course. This is what we see with every other aspect of Literotica as well. I just spoke from my own point of view as such was the nature of the discussion that came after Laurel's "ruling" about how that rule should be interpreted. I know better than to expect anything to change just because we want it to change
To form an impression, I would first have to read a story that participated in some contest. I don't think I ever did. I am speaking from the point of view of pure logic, as little or as much as that has to do with reality. The average reader is the voter and thus they are more likely to give 5* to the story that pleases them. Also getting that blue W is an achievement for the author and something that might bring readership. They have an incentive to write something the readers might like. All of this makes sense to me, even if I can't testify to how things actually play out in the contests.
I actually started writing a huge post and then gave up on the thought. It would start some things I have no desire to start.
The monetary rewards here are pretty standard with those mainstream contests for short stories I've been connected with.
Okay, accepted. Yet you were the one advocating eliminating prizes because they promoted cheating.
So? I was responding to the supposition that the monetary awards here are niggling. They pretty much are standard.
It isn't little for writing contests. Readjust your thinking on writing erotica--for any short story contests for that matter.
My point exactly was that it's NOT paltry in the real world. It's pretty much in line with short story contest prize money in the real world. That's the point I've repeatedly tried to make.
I agree. On the whole, Contest winners are stories where I think most people would say that's good writing, regardless of the popularity of the author. Occasional exceptions, but not many.
That is true, but if you have no chance of obtaining revenue from the stories that you have posted here for FREE, then there is no "cause of action" or damage that you can demonstrate from others commandeering your stories. You retain the legal rights to your intellectual property, but if you can show no damage to yourself or your interests, it is a very toothless sort of right. If the others somehow manage to make money off of your works, you might be able to show that you deserve that money. But if they are just further publishing another free version of your story, I don't see how that makes any sort of difference, in law or in reality. It amounts to no more than "bragging rights."
Not really. Not from a legal perspective in the United States. In fact, it doesn't mention yet another hurdle right up front. If you haven't obtained a formal copyright, you have no standing in court in the United States to claim ownership of the work. As the quote indicates, though, even if you hold a formal copyright, if the work has been published to the Internet for free access, you've valued it at zero dollars worth and a U.S. court wouldn't give you any monetary damages even if you won a suit (that you've spent a lot of time and money on to bring to court).
Not really. People here have gotten a whole lot better over recent years in understanding that, in the United States, their copyright protections (purposely) aren't what the Berne Convention's "owned upon creation" indicate they are from a surface read. You're new here. You have no idea how hard reality was as a sale here until recent years. We aren't seeing anything like the stubborn denial and emotion we once saw here. And you can't separate "legal" from the issue.
No, YOU can't.
