4 ms·

Agreed 100%. The likes of the EFF are at a huge natural disadvantage because nobody stands to profit from rationally curtailing copyright. Groups like the EFF a

by mwfunk 8y ago

Agreed 100%. The likes of the EFF are at a huge natural disadvantage because nobody stands to profit from rationally curtailing copyright. Groups like the EFF are literally just trying to do the ethically right thing for everyone (at least in their eyes and mine), and it costs them money to do so, money that comes almost entirely from donations (I think). Whereas those pushing for copyright extensions not only have their own revenue stream, they actually stand to profit from the results of their lobbying. The EFF has to spend money they don’t have to fight for their beliefs, but the copyright extension people likely make a net profit over time fighting for their own interests. It’s like a negative sum game- the net result is worse for almost everyone to a greater degree than it benefits a few. If money played no role in politicians’ decision making, those decisions would be much more rational and responsible. For all I know, maybe most of them would still support copyright extensions, but it would at least be because in their judgement it was the right thing for the American people. The ridiculous amount of money in American politics muddies the waters and forces all participants into moral hazards and perpetual conflicts of interest.

pervycreeper 8y ago
>nobody stands to profit from rationally curtailing copyright Except, of course, nearly everybody.
- mwfunk 8y ago
  I'm assuming you mean nearly everybody would profit in a non-financial sense, or that more wealth would be created in the aggregate but not so much individually, and if that's what you mean, I generally agree. IMO, it would be better for the group to curtail copyright somewhat in the US. But here I meant "profit" in the depressingly literal, "a specific individual or group, that can afford an IP attorney, who makes money on whatever they consider to be their IP" sense. For better or worse, the system in the US currently favors those with the desire and resources to hire great IP attorneys, who are themselves motivated to always argue for stricter IP laws, whose firms have the resources to make huge campaign contributions. There is no one spending equal amounts of money to push things in the opposite direction, therefore as long as there's money in politics there will always be an invisible hand guiding things in favor of "individuals or groups who stand to profit from something" over all other criteria.

by mwfunk 8y ago

pervycreeper 8y ago

>nobody stands to profit from rationally curtailing copyright Except, of course, nearly everybody.

mwfunk 8y ago
I'm assuming you mean nearly everybody would profit in a non-financial sense, or that more wealth would be created in the aggregate but not so much individually, and if that's what you mean, I generally agree. IMO, it would be better for the group to curtail copyright somewhat in the US. But here I meant "profit" in the depressingly literal, "a specific individual or group, that can afford an IP attorney, who makes money on whatever they consider to be their IP" sense. For better or worse, the system in the US currently favors those with the desire and resources to hire great IP attorneys, who are themselves motivated to always argue for stricter IP laws, whose firms have the resources to make huge campaign contributions. There is no one spending equal amounts of money to push things in the opposite direction, therefore as long as there's money in politics there will always be an invisible hand guiding things in favor of "individuals or groups who stand to profit from something" over all other criteria.