2 ms·

> why should the artist have any say over what other people do? Because amongst other things, an artist might want to control what their works are associated w

by jfim 11y ago

> why should the artist have any say over what other people do? Because amongst other things, an artist might want to control what their works are associated with and how they are displayed (known as moral rights in some copyright laws, not sure it applies to the US). For example, assume an artist makes a song; they get to say if it can be used to advertise things they don't approve of or if it gets remixed into something else. It means that writers get protection against a publisher just taking their manuscript and doing s/Harry Potter/Terry Totter/, claiming it as an original work and selling it with a larger advertising budget than the original author. It prevents someone from taking your pictures or other original works and selling them as postcards , T-shirts and coffee mugs without your consent.

gnaritas 11y ago
> Because amongst other things, an artist might want to control what their works are associated with and how they are displayed (known as moral rights in some copyright laws, not sure it applies to the US). The issue here isn't what the artist wants. The issue is whether we as a society should allow the artist to control an expression of an idea, and if so, for how long. What society wants is more important than what an artist wants and intellectual property is a made up figment of societies imagination. Words are not actually property, my copying those words doesn't steal yours. My using the same sequence of some part of your song shouldn't entitle you a right to say no, I own that phrase and if it does, we are all harmed by said restrictions. Information is not property in that sense and should not be. Intellectual property rights are harmful to society if not kept in strict check. It is now virtually impossible to write a computer program without violating someone's IP even though you've never seen it. That means we've gone too far in allowing people to own ideas.

by jfim 11y ago

gnaritas 11y ago

> Because amongst other things, an artist might want to control what their works are associated with and how they are displayed (known as moral rights in some copyright laws, not sure it applies to the US). The issue here isn't what the artist wants. The issue is whether we as a society should allow the artist to control an expression of an idea, and if so, for how long. What society wants is more important than what an artist wants and intellectual property is a made up figment of societies imagination. Words are not actually property, my copying those words doesn't steal yours. My using the same sequence of some part of your song shouldn't entitle you a right to say no, I own that phrase and if it does, we are all harmed by said restrictions. Information is not property in that sense and should not be. Intellectual property rights are harmful to society if not kept in strict check. It is now virtually impossible to write a computer program without violating someone's IP even though you've never seen it. That means we've gone too far in allowing people to own ideas.