4 ms·

Any ruling toward the original purpose of copyright, where it merely prevented large manufacturers from making a profit on others' copyrighted work, is a good t

by vortico 11y ago

Any ruling toward the original purpose of copyright, where it merely prevented large manufacturers from making a profit on others' copyrighted work, is a good thing.

aidenn0 11y ago
While I generally agree with you: 1) Youtube is a large publisher 2) Youtube runs ads and profits on posted videos. 3) Copyright predates the ability for individuals to make millions of copies for essentially zero-cost, so some updating to the rules for the digital era makes sense.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Copyright has also been taken to its logical extreme in recent history, granting copyright terms that, in many cases, won't expire for 150 years or more from the date of publication, well beyond the lifespan of any human. Copyright was supposed to be a compromise between the public and the rightsholder, where the public was willing to give up some of its natural right to copying and sharing in order to incentivize creativity. We've left all that in the dust now, and our copyright laws are currently based solely on scare tactics from massive media conglomerates. IP reform is badly needed but I think we've still got a little ways to go before it seems so "common sense" that it occurs. Once the generation that grew up on Napster and its successors gets into their 50s, we might see some substantive change.
  - aidenn0 11y ago
    Unfortunately I've seen the opposite result so far. I've seen authors literally balk at the suggestion that they shouldn't have full control over their creations for perpetuity, and upon further digging, their point of view was that anything less is immoral, not just illegal.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      I think that's a really compelling viewpoint. Why should society have any rights to an artistic creation? I can have perpetual rights to some land that my ancestors (well not my ancestors since I'm an immigrant) stole from native Americans, which existed long before any human was alive, but somehow my right to something that I created that never existed before is subject to a social balancing? I don't buy it.
      - CamperBob2 11y ago
        Your land didn't depend on any other land in order to be created, for one thing. If you want perpetual copyright, go live on a deserted island and work without any outside influence.
        rayiner 11y ago
        Sure, creative works may be influenced by other creative works, but those are also protected by copyright and bought and paid for. I don't see how your argument justifies anyone else having rights to your creative works.
        magicalist 11y ago
        > I don't see how your argument justifies anyone else having rights to your creative works. Considering that they are intangible, I think you'll have to justify your exclusive rights to your creative works and why the government should enforce them. Fortunately (in the US) the constitution has you covered, and notably does not root it in an abstract right of ownership but as a means toward "the progress of science and useful arts".
        rayiner 11y ago
        I agree that the rival nature of physical property tends to cut in favor of stronger protections for physical versus intangible property. On the other hand, given the moralistic undertone of "rights" I think it doesn't make sense to ignore the other distinction, which is that intangible property is much more the product of human will and effort than many kinds of tangible property, particularly land. I think that cuts the other way--in favor of stronger protections for created property than not-created property.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> Any ruling toward the original purpose of copyright, where it merely prevented large manufacturers from making a profit on others' copyrighted work Huh? The original purpose of copyright was to allow the government to prevent the publication of works it didn't like. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early_privileges_and_monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early... : > While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways, which allowed the dissemination of Bibles and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly. As a consequence, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licences to trade and produce books. The licenses typically gave printers the exclusive right to print particular works for a fixed period of years, and enabled the printer to prevent others from printing the same work during that period. > As the "menace" of printing spread, governments established centralized control mechanisms, and in 1557 the English Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books."

by vortico 11y ago

Any ruling toward the original purpose of copyright, where it merely prevented large manufacturers from making a profit on others' copyrighted work, is a good thing.

aidenn0 11y ago

While I generally agree with you: 1) Youtube is a large publisher 2) Youtube runs ads and profits on posted videos. 3) Copyright predates the ability for individuals to make millions of copies for essentially zero-cost, so some updating to the rules for the digital era makes sense.

cookiecaper 11y ago
Copyright has also been taken to its logical extreme in recent history, granting copyright terms that, in many cases, won't expire for 150 years or more from the date of publication, well beyond the lifespan of any human. Copyright was supposed to be a compromise between the public and the rightsholder, where the public was willing to give up some of its natural right to copying and sharing in order to incentivize creativity. We've left all that in the dust now, and our copyright laws are currently based solely on scare tactics from massive media conglomerates. IP reform is badly needed but I think we've still got a little ways to go before it seems so "common sense" that it occurs. Once the generation that grew up on Napster and its successors gets into their 50s, we might see some substantive change.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  Unfortunately I've seen the opposite result so far. I've seen authors literally balk at the suggestion that they shouldn't have full control over their creations for perpetuity, and upon further digging, their point of view was that anything less is immoral, not just illegal.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I think that's a really compelling viewpoint. Why should society have any rights to an artistic creation? I can have perpetual rights to some land that my ancestors (well not my ancestors since I'm an immigrant) stole from native Americans, which existed long before any human was alive, but somehow my right to something that I created that never existed before is subject to a social balancing? I don't buy it.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      Your land didn't depend on any other land in order to be created, for one thing. If you want perpetual copyright, go live on a deserted island and work without any outside influence.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Sure, creative works may be influenced by other creative works, but those are also protected by copyright and bought and paid for. I don't see how your argument justifies anyone else having rights to your creative works.
        magicalist 11y ago
        > I don't see how your argument justifies anyone else having rights to your creative works. Considering that they are intangible, I think you'll have to justify your exclusive rights to your creative works and why the government should enforce them. Fortunately (in the US) the constitution has you covered, and notably does not root it in an abstract right of ownership but as a means toward "the progress of science and useful arts".
        rayiner 11y ago
        I agree that the rival nature of physical property tends to cut in favor of stronger protections for physical versus intangible property. On the other hand, given the moralistic undertone of "rights" I think it doesn't make sense to ignore the other distinction, which is that intangible property is much more the product of human will and effort than many kinds of tangible property, particularly land. I think that cuts the other way--in favor of stronger protections for created property than not-created property.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> Any ruling toward the original purpose of copyright, where it merely prevented large manufacturers from making a profit on others' copyrighted work Huh? The original purpose of copyright was to allow the government to prevent the publication of works it didn't like. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early_privileges_and_monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early... : > While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways, which allowed the dissemination of Bibles and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly. As a consequence, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licences to trade and produce books. The licenses typically gave printers the exclusive right to print particular works for a fixed period of years, and enabled the printer to prevent others from printing the same work during that period. > As the "menace" of printing spread, governments established centralized control mechanisms, and in 1557 the English Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books."