5 ms·
The fundamental idea underpinning copyright is that it allows people to make a profit from their work, be that recorded video, audio, a written computer program
by RugnirViking 7y ago
The fundamental idea underpinning copyright is that it allows people to make a profit from their work, be that recorded video, audio, a written computer program, or any other kind of intellectual property.
If there was no such thing as copyright, if you recorded a music track and gave it to somebody, they could legally sell it themselves to other people, and undercut you or just give it away for free. (of course people still do on a person-to-person basis, but this would make it completely legal for even a movie theatre to show hollywood movies without paying any rights)
Why is creators being able to make money in this way from their creations good for society? Well, previously, the method to make money from art before copyright was the patronage system, which involved wealthy individuals sponsoring an artist to create things on their behalf, with varying levels of interference in the process. This worked to some extent, but the fundamental idea underpinning copyright is that if everybody sponsors a small amount for a product then it will be better for most people, rather than catering to the specific tastes of a single wealthy individual.
You see this kind of thing happening nowadays with platforms like patreon - it is possible to earn a living from a relatively small subset of the people that actually consume your content, and even while giving it away for free, simply because those people have a desire to see more of the same stuff. The problem with patreon is that it has to overcome a little bit of a tradgedy of the commons problem, whereby stopping your own individual contribution is unlikely to have much of an impact on the quality of art produced. Nonetheless, it seems to have found it's niche, and is only growing.
What about if nobody pays for art? There are plenty of parts of our culture that nobody got any money for. Often things created by relatively nameless folk expecting nothing in return but the love of creating are some of our greatest cultural works, be them folk songs or open-source software.
While I speak mainly about art and music in this piece, any kind of intellectual property that can be copyright works in mostly the same way. There is relatively little that is different in the grand scheme of things between monetising a song and monetising a coputer program - both are practically impossible to do without allowing the user to share it futher without your control.
- OleLukoje 7y ago> but the fundamental idea underpinning copyright is that if everybody sponsors a small amount for a product then it will be better for most people, rather than catering to the specific tastes of a single wealthy individual. Doesn't it work the other way around currently? Instead of sharing the intellectual property for the better of the most people we lock the property in the hands of a few. Probably as the time goes the wealthy will accumulate all of the IP in their hands eventually.
- RugnirViking 7y agoIt's not about ownership, but about the content of the IP itself. The wealthy can only concentrate IP by making things that work for the majority of people. Wheras previously, things were often super eclectic and weird, to suit the tastes of a particular individual. Whether things that work for the majority of people results in lower quality art is an open debate. Personally I believe that it does end up with worse results, but the thinking behind copyright as it is implemented right now is that it is better.
- shi314 7y agoWhat is rationale behind copyrights even after an artist dies?
- muzani 7y agoMany people make money not so much to support themselves, but also their family.