3 ms·

> It doesn't need to be like that. The copyright holder can still be compensated even if they can't stop you from publishing their stuff. But on your terms ins

by hashkb 6y ago

> It doesn't need to be like that. The copyright holder can still be compensated even if they can't stop you from publishing their stuff. But on your terms instead of theirs? Why would you want to reduce my power of my creation? Won't that have a chilling effect on what I produce? Can't I charge whatever price I see fit for my own work? If I were a chef, and it were possible for you to duplicate food, would you apply the same reasoning to my infinitely duplicated meals? I should be paid, but have no leverage myself in how / how much? Edit: and let's say I have a valid reason for not wanting to cook for you, in particular; that choice also should be taken away from me? How do you see the role of artists in our society? Assembly line workers, churning out art for mass consumption?

aflag 6y ago
It's not my terms vs their terms. The terms are ours. We, as a society, decided that creators have full monopolistic power over their creation for a certain number of years. It doesn't need to be that way, though. Society can weigh the pros and cons and decide. I don't pretend to have figured everything out, but the rate publishers pay creators doesn't need to be fixed. As long as exclusivity contracts are not allowed (including self publishing). I think we should be experimenting, though. If the rules change and the end result is that there's less content (or of lower quality), then it could be a justification to go back to the old system. We won't know if we don't try. Taking your food example. If we had a way to duplicate food for free, it would suck if anyone is starving or having to eat the same thing everyday because of our laws. We have the power to losslessly copy data now, we should be taking advantage of it rather than outlawing it.