6 ms·

Copyright does no longer exist to protect creators, but to protect the distributors. We badly need a reform.

hamstergene 11y ago
Isn't distribution done by third-party services either? Kindle store or iTunes store aren't copyright holders, for example. The problem with copyright is that it is used as an excuse to deliver the good idea to protect the new authors who are still alive, in the same package with the bad idea to let unspecified number of loosely related and unrelated people feed off free money source created by long dead authors decades ago.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >The problem with copyright is that it is used as an excuse to deliver the good idea to protect the new authors who are still alive, in the same package with the bad idea to let unspecified number of loosely related and unrelated people feed off free money source created by long dead authors decades ago. I think part of the idea is that whether the creators are dead or not, having copyright and "unrelated people feed off", still maintains an economy over the item and gives it monetary value. Whereas if it was de-copyrighted it would lose that value -- everybody could just copy it. E.g. Disney only being able to create or allow the creation of Mickey Mouse stuff (t-shirts etc), leads to a large business for them, taxes for US etc. (Plus pays a lobby to ensure longer copyright). If Mickey Mouse was suddenly public domain, that would stop and its characters would be devalued very fast, with everybody competing with ever cheaper products with him on.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    And they would come up with some other creative character with a new copyright duration, thus enriching our public culture with their previous works and employing people to create new works for people to enjoy. Twenty years ought to be enough to recoup your investment, but I'm open to compromise. In any case, (rougly) 150 years, as it currently is, is way, way, way, way, way, way way too long.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >And they would come up with some other creative character with a new copyright duration, thus enriching our public culture with their previous works and employing people to create new works for people to enjoy. Isn't letting them keep their copyright for long, an even stronger inventive for OTHERS to come up with some new characters? (in order to compete with them).
      - coldpie 11y ago
        Maybe. It also stifles other creative endeavors that could be done with those characters by other authors. Lots of cool stuff is done with things in public domain (think Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, plenty of others), and I don't buy an argument that people would stop creating new things if they could simply copy someone else's.
    - coderdude 11y ago
      Way too long for why? I don't believe citizens are harmed by not being able to make money from something they didn't create.
      - coldpie 11y ago
        Really? Copyright is siloing off culture in unprecedented ways. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech is under copyright by his estate, and will be until the 2040s. It can't be used by anyone without paying (large) licensing fees to his estate, even though they had literally nothing to do with the creation of the speech. Ever notice how restaurants and movies never use "the Happy Birthday song"? That's because Warner Bros claimed copyright on it for decades. Another part of our culture that can't be used thanks to copyright. There are plenty of films, plays, and TV series based on works in the public domain. Romeo and Juliet, Pride and Prejudice, and Sherlock Holmes to name just a few that come to mind. Should those creators be required to pay tribute to the descendants of the long-dead authors in order to use those parts of our shared culture?
        pluma 11y ago
  - collyw 11y ago
    Linux doesn't loose value because people can copy it.
    - alsetmusic 11y ago
      Linux is under a permissible license. That's the point. https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
    - uremog 11y ago
      I think they mean monetary value... (vice educational, entertainment, etc value)
  - chongli 11y ago
    That's not true. Mickey Mouse himself is protected by trademark, which never expires as long as it is vigorously defended by the rightsholder. Copyright expiration would only affect those old, old films starring Mickey.
  - camexp 11y ago
    >Whereas if it was de-copyrighted it would lose that value -- everybody could just copy it. I think you have the whole process upside down. Digital media already has no value, and it can already be copied freely. The changes in the law that Disney and other copyright maximalists are doing is attempting to re-value digital media. So, the only option open to them is to push for ever more draconian laws simply to protect their broken and outdated business models.
static_noise 11y ago
The law is like a magic spell invisibly binding the hands of people by soft power and binding the hands of people through the law enforcement by hard power. The problem with hard power is, that it is expensive. If it wasn't police states would work wonderfully. Instead, the government needs cooperation of the people by formulating the law in ways that are acceptable to the people. By providing thought systems propagated through school and media appropriate patterns are engraved in the nations minds. People need to either think "this law is just" or "i don't want to go to jail for that" or "i don't want to lose everything that i hold dearly" or "i don't want my family to starve" for the spells of the law to work. We are more and more coming to a point where the proponents of copyright law must either step up the propaganda, the enforcement or change the law.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >The problem with hard power is, that it is expensive. Only for total enforcement, and only when the technology is not advanced enough to make even that cheap. Here's a hypothetical example: with widespread internet surveillance, you could just charge people immediately on the first sign of them pirating something -- take the money off of their bank accounts/salary, kind of the same way one gets a traffic ticket through camera surveillance, but even faster. >If it wasn't police states would work wonderfully. Who said that they don't? It's often not the police state that fails, it is the state in general, and for other reasons.
dustinchilson 11y ago
Copyright was never for the creators, It's always been for the distributors. Not a great source but: http://questioncopyright.org/promise http://questioncopyright.org/promise

Isn't distribution done by third-party services either? Kindle store or iTunes store aren't copyright holders, for example. The problem with copyright is that it is used as an excuse to deliver the good idea to protect the new authors who are still alive, in the same package with the bad idea to let unspecified number of loosely related and unrelated people feed off free money source created by long dead authors decades ago.

coldtea 11y ago
>The problem with copyright is that it is used as an excuse to deliver the good idea to protect the new authors who are still alive, in the same package with the bad idea to let unspecified number of loosely related and unrelated people feed off free money source created by long dead authors decades ago. I think part of the idea is that whether the creators are dead or not, having copyright and "unrelated people feed off", still maintains an economy over the item and gives it monetary value. Whereas if it was de-copyrighted it would lose that value -- everybody could just copy it. E.g. Disney only being able to create or allow the creation of Mickey Mouse stuff (t-shirts etc), leads to a large business for them, taxes for US etc. (Plus pays a lobby to ensure longer copyright). If Mickey Mouse was suddenly public domain, that would stop and its characters would be devalued very fast, with everybody competing with ever cheaper products with him on.
- coldpie 11y ago
  And they would come up with some other creative character with a new copyright duration, thus enriching our public culture with their previous works and employing people to create new works for people to enjoy. Twenty years ought to be enough to recoup your investment, but I'm open to compromise. In any case, (rougly) 150 years, as it currently is, is way, way, way, way, way, way way too long.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >And they would come up with some other creative character with a new copyright duration, thus enriching our public culture with their previous works and employing people to create new works for people to enjoy. Isn't letting them keep their copyright for long, an even stronger inventive for OTHERS to come up with some new characters? (in order to compete with them).
    - coldpie 11y ago
      Maybe. It also stifles other creative endeavors that could be done with those characters by other authors. Lots of cool stuff is done with things in public domain (think Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, plenty of others), and I don't buy an argument that people would stop creating new things if they could simply copy someone else's.
  - coderdude 11y ago
    Way too long for why? I don't believe citizens are harmed by not being able to make money from something they didn't create.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      Really? Copyright is siloing off culture in unprecedented ways. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech is under copyright by his estate, and will be until the 2040s. It can't be used by anyone without paying (large) licensing fees to his estate, even though they had literally nothing to do with the creation of the speech. Ever notice how restaurants and movies never use "the Happy Birthday song"? That's because Warner Bros claimed copyright on it for decades. Another part of our culture that can't be used thanks to copyright. There are plenty of films, plays, and TV series based on works in the public domain. Romeo and Juliet, Pride and Prejudice, and Sherlock Holmes to name just a few that come to mind. Should those creators be required to pay tribute to the descendants of the long-dead authors in order to use those parts of our shared culture?
      - pluma 11y ago
- collyw 11y ago
  Linux doesn't loose value because people can copy it.
  - alsetmusic 11y ago
    Linux is under a permissible license. That's the point. https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
  - uremog 11y ago
    I think they mean monetary value... (vice educational, entertainment, etc value)
- chongli 11y ago
  That's not true. Mickey Mouse himself is protected by trademark, which never expires as long as it is vigorously defended by the rightsholder. Copyright expiration would only affect those old, old films starring Mickey.
- camexp 11y ago
  >Whereas if it was de-copyrighted it would lose that value -- everybody could just copy it. I think you have the whole process upside down. Digital media already has no value, and it can already be copied freely. The changes in the law that Disney and other copyright maximalists are doing is attempting to re-value digital media. So, the only option open to them is to push for ever more draconian laws simply to protect their broken and outdated business models.

static_noise 11y ago

The law is like a magic spell invisibly binding the hands of people by soft power and binding the hands of people through the law enforcement by hard power. The problem with hard power is, that it is expensive. If it wasn't police states would work wonderfully. Instead, the government needs cooperation of the people by formulating the law in ways that are acceptable to the people. By providing thought systems propagated through school and media appropriate patterns are engraved in the nations minds. People need to either think "this law is just" or "i don't want to go to jail for that" or "i don't want to lose everything that i hold dearly" or "i don't want my family to starve" for the spells of the law to work. We are more and more coming to a point where the proponents of copyright law must either step up the propaganda, the enforcement or change the law.

coldtea 11y ago
>The problem with hard power is, that it is expensive. Only for total enforcement, and only when the technology is not advanced enough to make even that cheap. Here's a hypothetical example: with widespread internet surveillance, you could just charge people immediately on the first sign of them pirating something -- take the money off of their bank accounts/salary, kind of the same way one gets a traffic ticket through camera surveillance, but even faster. >If it wasn't police states would work wonderfully. Who said that they don't? It's often not the police state that fails, it is the state in general, and for other reasons.

dustinchilson 11y ago

Copyright was never for the creators, It's always been for the distributors. Not a great source but: http://questioncopyright.org/promise http://questioncopyright.org/promise