5 ms·

No Copyright. Knowledge isn't a property. Copying is not theft.

by skidd0 8y ago

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
What 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 ago
  There 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 ago
      I 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 ago
  IMO, 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 ago
Cool. 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 ago
  Anti-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 ago
  We didn't always have this system. Things still worked. Removing copyright may let a better system be out in place
- kgwxd 8y ago
  There 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.

No Copyright. Knowledge isn't a property. Copying is not theft.

by skidd0 8y ago

No Copyright. Knowledge isn't a property. Copying is not theft.

What 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 ago
There 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 ago
    I 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 ago
IMO, 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 ago

Cool. 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 ago
Anti-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 ago
We didn't always have this system. Things still worked. Removing copyright may let a better system be out in place
kgwxd 8y ago
There 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.