6 ms·
Poll: Would you prefer no copyright to current copyright laws?
- skidd0 8y agoNo Copyright. Knowledge isn't a property. Copying is not theft.
- jeffreyrogers 8y agoWhat if you write a great novel? Should whoever is best able to publish and market it be allowed to get all the profits from it and leave you with nothing? I agree that the current intellectual property system has lots of problems and it favors wealthy companies that can navigate the legal system, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of all protections.
- EvanAnderson 8y agoThere exist a class of people who absolutely do believe that the creator of a work doesn't "own" that work and has no entitlement to the profits of duplicating and distributing that work. I've applied the "free-est" license that I can to every bit of "intellectual property" I've ever made-- be that the Perl Artistic License for software or a Creative Commons public domain dedication for music, photos, and non-software writing. I don't believe I'm "owed" anything by anyone for the ideas I've chosen to publicly express. One could argue that the things I've produced are "worthless", since I'm a rank amateur at everything I do, and that the gesture is meaningless on that basis. I don't think that changes the nature of the gesture, personally-- I worked as hard on the works I've created than anyone else, and I don't feel at all entitled to "protections". One could also argue that it would be different if I "made my living" from creating "intellectual property". I have specifically avoided that in my life because I don't believe that's a morally right way to "make a living". I can't tell you how I'd feel if I couldn't "make a living" exploiting copyright protections because I'd never do it to begin with. Edit: My attitude does mean that some business models simply wouldn't exist. I'm not saddened by that, and I don't think humanity is any the poorer for it. Artists will still express themselves, whether they're paid for it or not. Patronage models existed before copyright and drove the creation of many great works. There are other ways that works can be created besides a royalty-based model.
- twblalock 8y ago> I've applied the "free-est" license that I can to every bit of "intellectual property" I've ever made-- be that the Perl Artistic License for software or a Creative Commons public domain dedication for music, photos, and non-software writing. I don't believe I'm "owed" anything by anyone for the ideas I've chosen to publicly express. Good for you, but why should you be able to force everyone else to give away their work as you have done?
- EvanAnderson 8y agoI am alright with copyright existing if the terms were actually limited in duration. The current term is vastly too long. The "consideration" portion of the social contract is currently stilted too far in the favor of the creator of the work. Since I disagree with the system, as it is, I don't feel like I exploit any of its "protections" w/o being a hypocrite. Even if the terms were made more reasonable (by decreasing the duration) I still don't think I'd avail myself, but I'd be alright if others did.
- TheAceOfHearts 8y agoIMO, copyright needs to be much shorter. Once you share something with society, which is the mechanism through which your thing becomes successful, you give up control. If you publish a great novel, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to write a sequel or short story, as long as I'm not passing myself off as you. For that matter, I don't see why people shouldn't be able to rewrite parts of a story. The original doesn't suddenly go away, it's just been forked. Maybe the fork is better and people enjoy it more. Let the best story win.
- pleasecalllater 8y agoCool. I have no idea what you do for a living... but imagine you write a blog, or you write books, or you are composing some music. Are you happy being hungry all days just because everyone can just copy you work and sell it on their own? So when you will have an idea to pay your rent with the money you will get from your new book, just remember what you wrote: "Knowledge isn't a property. Copying is not theft.". So I assume it's fine that you will get nothing. So the choice is simple: you will be either a hungry homeless writer or you will find some other job. And we will end with little books, little knowledge, little art.
- unstuckdev 8y agoAnti-copyright people seem to exist in a world where the only people who make things do so at big C&D-happy corporations. They mistake the cost of reproduction with the cost of creating and think the creating will happen with no control over reproduction.
- myrryr 8y agoWe didn't always have this system. Things still worked. Removing copyright may let a better system be out in place
- kgwxd 8y agoThere a billion books, songs, blogs, software projects, paintings, photos, and other copyrightable things no one ever made a dime off and most of the creators aren't homeless. It can be made while working another job, raising a family, dealing with life. The only people making money off this stuff are the very few you hear about. And the people that "dedicate all their time" to it will, of course, tell you it's the only way to make stuff as great as theirs (via twitter, from a private island, while doing anything but creating), and enough people believe that is true to keep the money machine churning. Creativity isn't going to dwindle away with no laws "protecting" it.
- edanm 8y ago> The only people making money off this stuff are the very few you hear about. And the people that "dedicate all their time" to it will, of course, tell you it's the only way to make stuff as great as theirs That's absolutely wrong IMO. In almost every nice subject I'm interested in, there are a bunch of people creating wonderful content. This is in topics that most people have never heard of and wouldn't care about even if they did. These people can have a career or a decent second income creating works that few people will ever hear of, and funny enough, there's a good chance that they need that extra money more than the few names everyone's heard of, since they don't have alternatives like e.g. concerts, selling signed copies, etc.
- inetsee 8y agoMy preference would be to return to the original copyright law; a 14 year term, with one 14 year renewal, with registration required.
- omosubi 8y agoThis. A binary poll doesn't accurately reflect societies options
- gpm 8y agoOf course it doesn't. But societies opinions are complex, hard to measure, harder to explain how you measured, and impossible to measure with receiving accusations that how you measured was biased. This provides an interesting insight in an a simple quantifiable way that provides some interesting information.
- andrei_says_ 8y agoI upvoted this option.
- tastyham 8y agoRequiring registration screws over small time producers.
- colejohnson66 8y agoThis. I quite like that the code I write is copyrighted without effort from me. Maybe do the 14+14 with implicit copyright?
- AnthonyMouse 8y agoMaybe do implicit for the first 14 years and registration required for the second.
- EvanAnderson 8y agoI registered copyrights for software I wrote when I was a 12 y/o kid (a kid who was interested in intellectual property law, to be sure, but still a kid). It wasn't that difficult.
- Zanni 8y agoIf you can, I'd suggest you edit your options to "no copyright" and "current copyright." The double negative is confusing. Does "no" mean "no copyright" or "no, I don't prefer no copyright?" (I assume the latter, but still.)
- networked 8y agoDone. Thanks.
- fucking_tragedy 8y agoIronically, current copyright laws are what made a lot of open source software possible.
- cameronhowe 8y agoQuestion for people voting keep current copyright law: How do you live modern life without violating copyright law, or do you think it should stay the way it is but not be enforced?
- twblalock 8y agoI don’t see how I violate copyright law in my daily life. It’s not like I acidentally pirate movies.
- cameronhowe 8y agoPirating movies is not the only way to violate copyright law. Taking photos of things without the correct permissions (freedom of panorama) sharing copyright protected things on social media I don't know anyone who doesn't violate some aspect of the law.
- unstuckdev 8y agoHas anyone ever been successfully sued or fined over an IP-protected object in a shot where that object wasn't the focus?
- cameronhowe 8y agoSo first off, your question is irrelevant to my original question. I asked specifically if something is never enforced why should it be a law. None of the replies to my question has even addressed that :( Secondly, that is not what freedom of panorama means, it means you are allowed to take pictures of anything in the public space. See: https://expertphotography.com/freedom-of-panorama-photography/ https://expertphotography.com/freedom-of-panorama-photograph... Thirdly, wikipedia has examples of litigations. Fourthly, IP is not copyright. If you took a selfie with some top secret tech you signed an NDA not to reveal was in there you will probably get in big trouble \/ yes probably
- 8y ago
- anonyfox 8y agoWithout any forms of copyright, there would be an explosion in art, science and business... but mostly small firms/independend people would benefit from it. so, lobby does whatever it can to make people belief that only BigCorp with billions of theoretical research budget can save us. I think the first western country (with enough economic power) that trashes the concept of copyright will dominate everything in art/science/entrepreneurship within few years. There will ne less super rich popstars or „winner Takes it all“-monopolistic companies, since the field is much more accessible for everyone - a net positive in my book.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y ago> Without any forms of copyright, there would be an explosion in art, science and business... but mostly small firms/independend people would benefit from it. so, lobby does whatever it can to make people belief that only BigCorp with billions of theoretical research budget can save us. Would companies like Patreon benefit?
- gpm 8y agoI see Patreon as being in two separate businesses - Providing an easy way to setup a recurring donation to an artist. This would probably benefit. - Providing an easy way for artists to sell a stream of digital works. This would probably not benefit. I'm not sure how much of patreon's income comes from each business, and the answer depends on that.
- TheAceOfHearts 8y agoI think it would. A lot of people on Patreon have a very simple model: you pay to get access to the highest quality version of the thing and you get access before everyone else. To give an example, I support a singer that puts out a few songs every month. When she publishes something she includes the wav and a link to the unlisted YouTube video. Then a few weeks later she makes the video public and she puts up her song everywhere. After following her for a while on YouTube I eventually became a supporter because I want her to continue making great music.
- edanm 8y ago
- linkmotif 8y agoInformation wants to be free. It will be free! If people want it.
- pleasecalllater 8y agoNope. Information has no will, it's dead, it cannot want anything.
- commons 8y agoFalse dichotomy. The notion of intellectual property is socially beneficial, but only insofar as it accomplishes its original goal "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..." Copyright dynasties that expand generations beyond the publication of a work or the death of the author, IP rights held by corporations as works for hire under extortionate terms without any further compensation of the original authors, perpetual trademark rights eclipsing fair use of aspects of works that have long since entered the public domain, the potential prevention of a digital public domain at all through DRM that is illegal to crack, a scientific journal's exclusive rights to publicly funded research... None of these things promote the progress of science and the useful arts, nor are they for a limited time. Copyright reform is long overdue.
- gonmf 8y agoCurrent copyright laws, of course. Or else no one would write a book, sell software, make movies, write music. No sharing wouldn't be possible, unless in a very controlled environment like watching a movie in the cinema or using software that only connects to a 3rd party service, that does all the computing.
- blfr 8y agoHow did you start a poll? I haven't seen a poll in a long, long time on HN. I know this is extremely generic but can we have an OS/browser/editor poll like we used to twice a year or so?
- AdamGibbins 8y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll https://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll
- cs702 8y agoPlease add a third option: shorter-term copyright, e.g., with all works going into the public domain within 10 or 20 years.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y agoI'd take 5, honestly. My perspective might be skewed by working in software, but I feel like that's really enough if you start from release date.
- networked 8y agoI would most prefer copyright that lasted 10-20 years, too. However, with this poll I was specifically interested in what HNers would choose in an all-or-nothing situation.
- liftbigweights 8y agoObviously I prefer sane limited copyright. But given the choice between the current copyright system and none, I choose none. The current copyright system is nothing but a money grab by mostly greedy middle men and descendent leeches. Copyright is supposed to reward creators and also foster creativity. The current system rewards parasitic multinational companies and lawyers and stifles creativity.
- subsubsub 8y agoPlease add a third option: "Copyright is a complex issue that cannot easily be summed up in a binary choice of good/bad, however i really enjoy voting in polls"
- subsubsub 8y agoAlso, this poll would allow someone to claim "HN backs the repeal of all copyright laws" or " HN backs current copyright laws".
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y agoThat sounds like something I would see in a Slashdot poll. Not saying that's a bad thing, mind:)
- kgwxd 8y agoIf there were no copyright, you could add the option yourself :)
- billyggruff 8y agoWould trademarks and patent terms remain the same?
- kgwxd 8y agoCould they?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zokier 8y agoWithout copyright there would be no copyleft; corporations would be free to exploit free software as much as they like. Somewhat counter-intuitively without copyright we might also start seeing even more hostile and aggressive DRM style systems
- kgwxd 8y agoWithout copyright everyone would be able to use what the big corporations make as well. For example, anyone could make sure there's always an original copy of Star Wars that never gets enhanced.
- Communitivity 8y agoThe current system, while horribly broken, is better than nothing. Copyright, as originally envisioned, would serve to protect authors of creative works. I think the best world would have separate and different copyright laws for different types of works, while also encouraging and protecting the contribution of original works to the public domain (tax breaks, etc.). I do think the current laws for software are completely busted though. Did you know the doubly-linked list is copyrighted?
- warkdarrior 8y agoWhat does it mean for the doubly-linked list to be copyrighted? Do you mean the technique is patented? Or is a particular implementation (say, written in C) copyrighted?
- BurritoAlPastor 8y agoThere’s a lot of hand-wringing in these comments about “But how will artists get paid? Who will bother to make art if they can’t make a living by their art?” Spoilers: Most artists don’t get paid. Most artists can’t make a living by their art. If you go around announcing your intentions to become a professional artist, in any medium, nobody will assure you that you’ll make good money for it. Thousands of people write novels for fun or their own satisfaction, and then post them online for free, because that’s the only way they can be read.
- BerislavLopac 8y agoAnd for those that get paid, in most cases that is not due to copyright. They get paid by selling, directly or through middlemen, hard or digital copies of their work, or simply get paid to create in the first place, via services like Patreon or by commission.
- edanm 8y ago> They get paid by selling, directly or through middlemen, hard or digital copies of their work Yes, but if other copies of this were essentially free, they wouldn't be able to sell these copies! (Or at least, probably only a small fraction). > or simply get paid to create in the first place, via services like Patreon or by commission. I'm a big Patreon fan and the rise of Patreon makes me very happy. However, it's worth noting that there are some problems with this model - for example, only art that pleases wealthy people will tend to get made under this model - it's better economics to target people living in rich Western countries over people living anywhere else. Also, only art that is kind of "acceptable" will tend to get made. Art that is more experimental, less likely to be immediately popular, less likely to immediately catch the eyes of the rich audience - that kind of art will become less prevalent.
- flycaliguy 8y agoReally? What about commercial art? As an animator, I'm surrounded by artists who are all making a great living. We create huge teams of artists and we create magnificent, profitable art. You can't just drop a bomb on creative professionals.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rkagerer 8y agoI wish this question was asked specifically for patents.
- BerislavLopac 8y agoI just realised: Disney basically owes the entirety of its existence to the copyright laws.
- edanm 8y agoIf your takeaway is that without copyright laws, there'd be no Disney, I take that as a pretty strong advocacy of copyright laws, since I'm a huge Disney fan :)