5 ms·

It bums me out when I see corporations putting so many resources into monopolizing copyright and preventing media from entering the public domain, which leads t

It bums me out when I see corporations putting so many resources into monopolizing copyright and preventing media from entering the public domain, which leads to consumers putting resources into purchasing media that would otherwise be in the public domain. The status quo is radically anti-consumer, IMO, as radical as abolition of all copyright would be.

zanny 7y ago
It more generally burns me out that we as a society still feel it is necessary to construct and reinforce so arbitrary an apparatus as copyright to substantially stymie the tremendous potential information exchange of computer networks. Of all the ways to try to promote creativity in the 21st century, making information distribution illegal by default and then using force of law to restrict said distribution unless authorized is pretty wack.
- dkarras 7y ago
  >it is necessary to construct and reinforce so arbitrary an apparatus as copyright to substantially stymie the tremendous potential information exchange of computer networks. It makes sense when you consider that information is generated in the first place for an incentive, and that incentive is only possible when copyright guards it. People are more than free to create public information if they choose to do so (and they do), but some people generate valuable information mostly for the purpose of profiting from it and the copyright framework tries to ensure that it will be worth their time when they attempt to create such information. Would you rather they didn't have the option which would result in the effort not being expended to generate such information? With copyright, you at least have the option to obtain it if you deem the price tag (set by the creator) fits the value you'll get from it. There is no central authority that copyrights information that people generate. You make it sound like there is some evil force in the world that prevents people from creating freely accessible information. There isn't. You're free to create freely accessible information. There are creators that choose to limit access to the information that they generate and I don't understand how someone can argue that it is unfair that they have an option to do so if they choose.
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    Alot of us think 75 years + life of the creator is a bit excessive.
    - dkarras 7y ago
      As long as the intellectual property framework is ther, recognised and enforced, I'm more than open to discuss the specifics of how it should be done. The argument above is about abolishing the idea of intellectual property as a shackle around humanity's creative output - something which I disagree with. They are saying that since making a copy of something is essentially free in the digital era, there should be no protections for copying and distribution of the data - and that people would generate data of similar quality regardless of the incentive of profit proportional with the value of data. I think that is an absurd claim. And we can easily see that it is not the case because there are countries with lax or non-existent legal intellectual property frameworks and they lack productivity growth and they don't innovate.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    US copyright laws have been proliferated around the world. Copyright was originally intended to be a limited-time monopoly which allowed consumers the ability to trust creators and creators the ability to share without worry that their idea would be stolen by other businesses. It was never intended to limit the rights of consumers, it's been warped into that by Disney which rewrote the laws to protect Mickey. Copyright as it is goes against the very purpose of creation preventing any new works from ever being created.
    - dkarras 7y ago
      >ability to share without worry that their idea would be stolen by other businesses. Presumably so because consumers stealing the final products was already prohibited / a crime. The final product was generally physical, and consumers would have to physically break into stores to get their copy of whatever was produced and it was already illegal. And even if the consumers obtained their copy by legitimate means, them sharing with other would mean they would lose their own copy. For consumable-ish items (things you only need to experience once to get the value out of the product) this is still a problem of course but there is no easy way of preventing it - but the idea is still there and the limits can be enforced. With digital information, the barrier for entry for such theft is greatly reduced. You don't lose your copy when you share, and stealing is a lot easier too. Doesn't mean it is right or it is in line with the spirit of what we thought ownership meant back in the day. >Copyright as it is goes against the very purpose of creation preventing any new works from ever being created. Again, I don't get this. EVERYONE has the OPTION to create works for public domain. Why is this not enough for you? Everything you want is already there. It's just that there is another option for others that don't want to create works for public domain. Why does that bother you? My guess is that if you were entirely happy with what people create without a motive for profit, you wouldn't care that other people had a copyright option. But you are not happy with what that economic model (free, copyleft etc.) produces by itself. You are aware that that economic model doesn't work. You want free access to information that people with economic incentives create with a price tag attached to it, because you know information generated with profit in mind tends to be more valuable.

zanny 7y ago

It more generally burns me out that we as a society still feel it is necessary to construct and reinforce so arbitrary an apparatus as copyright to substantially stymie the tremendous potential information exchange of computer networks. Of all the ways to try to promote creativity in the 21st century, making information distribution illegal by default and then using force of law to restrict said distribution unless authorized is pretty wack.

dkarras 7y ago
>it is necessary to construct and reinforce so arbitrary an apparatus as copyright to substantially stymie the tremendous potential information exchange of computer networks. It makes sense when you consider that information is generated in the first place for an incentive, and that incentive is only possible when copyright guards it. People are more than free to create public information if they choose to do so (and they do), but some people generate valuable information mostly for the purpose of profiting from it and the copyright framework tries to ensure that it will be worth their time when they attempt to create such information. Would you rather they didn't have the option which would result in the effort not being expended to generate such information? With copyright, you at least have the option to obtain it if you deem the price tag (set by the creator) fits the value you'll get from it. There is no central authority that copyrights information that people generate. You make it sound like there is some evil force in the world that prevents people from creating freely accessible information. There isn't. You're free to create freely accessible information. There are creators that choose to limit access to the information that they generate and I don't understand how someone can argue that it is unfair that they have an option to do so if they choose.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  Alot of us think 75 years + life of the creator is a bit excessive.
  - dkarras 7y ago
    As long as the intellectual property framework is ther, recognised and enforced, I'm more than open to discuss the specifics of how it should be done. The argument above is about abolishing the idea of intellectual property as a shackle around humanity's creative output - something which I disagree with. They are saying that since making a copy of something is essentially free in the digital era, there should be no protections for copying and distribution of the data - and that people would generate data of similar quality regardless of the incentive of profit proportional with the value of data. I think that is an absurd claim. And we can easily see that it is not the case because there are countries with lax or non-existent legal intellectual property frameworks and they lack productivity growth and they don't innovate.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  US copyright laws have been proliferated around the world. Copyright was originally intended to be a limited-time monopoly which allowed consumers the ability to trust creators and creators the ability to share without worry that their idea would be stolen by other businesses. It was never intended to limit the rights of consumers, it's been warped into that by Disney which rewrote the laws to protect Mickey. Copyright as it is goes against the very purpose of creation preventing any new works from ever being created.
  - dkarras 7y ago
    >ability to share without worry that their idea would be stolen by other businesses. Presumably so because consumers stealing the final products was already prohibited / a crime. The final product was generally physical, and consumers would have to physically break into stores to get their copy of whatever was produced and it was already illegal. And even if the consumers obtained their copy by legitimate means, them sharing with other would mean they would lose their own copy. For consumable-ish items (things you only need to experience once to get the value out of the product) this is still a problem of course but there is no easy way of preventing it - but the idea is still there and the limits can be enforced. With digital information, the barrier for entry for such theft is greatly reduced. You don't lose your copy when you share, and stealing is a lot easier too. Doesn't mean it is right or it is in line with the spirit of what we thought ownership meant back in the day. >Copyright as it is goes against the very purpose of creation preventing any new works from ever being created. Again, I don't get this. EVERYONE has the OPTION to create works for public domain. Why is this not enough for you? Everything you want is already there. It's just that there is another option for others that don't want to create works for public domain. Why does that bother you? My guess is that if you were entirely happy with what people create without a motive for profit, you wouldn't care that other people had a copyright option. But you are not happy with what that economic model (free, copyleft etc.) produces by itself. You are aware that that economic model doesn't work. You want free access to information that people with economic incentives create with a price tag attached to it, because you know information generated with profit in mind tends to be more valuable.