6 ms·

This is already how copyright works, so I am not sure what you are proposing. A reduction of time? How much?

Thorentis 6y ago
No, copyright restricts copying and derivative works without royalties. As I said in my comment, I propose the restriction only be on profiting from work, and for a much shorter period of time than currently (70 years for creative works? Absurd. 10 years is far more appropriate).
- slx26 6y ago
  I would actually go even further and say that the only restriction we should eventually need is crediting the original author. Potential individual profit (as in economic profit) makes sense in the current world where the distribution of resources is terrible and you want to be able to capitalize on your ideas. But ideally, if that's not an issue in the future, all you could reasonably want is "acknowledgement for your contributions". Even there the line is hard to draw, but I find myself more and more aligned with this perspective lately. Might still be too egocentric, though, and maybe not even "acknowledgement" is necessary. Maybe if acknowledgement was culturally more widespread even a law like this wouldn't make sense to me.
  - jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
    That is a vacuous statement. Yes, profit is only a problem if money is a problem. But given money is still used by society (and will be used for decades), it is pretty obvious you cannot remove profit. Do it, and only rich people will be able to create. No Harry Potter for us.
    - slx26 6y ago
      Well, I feel your reply is somewhat uncharitable. I mean, I said "ideally", and I didn't talk about money disappearing, only about, as you expressed, "money [not] being a problem". Which you might still consider naive, fair enough, but that's another story. And honestly, even if in practice it makes no immediate difference, telling apart the "moral" issues and the practical ones is relevant for analysis and defining the direction we want to move towards.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Limiting it to "profiting" opens up a giant load of issues. Is an artist not profiting from their art, do they not pay the rent with it, increase their reputation? Isn't a scientist profiting from their research, as results will also benefit their reputation and get them the next grant or tenure position / promotion? If you're limiting it to "immediate profit", I guess Amazon could've used anything and everything because they never made a profit until 2001. I very much agree regarding the years, though. And it's not even 70 years, it's 70 years after the creator's death.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
  That wouldn't work. Free copies, even if you restrict profiting on the copies, implies the value effectively goes to zero. Most things can be digitally copied for free (art, books, software...). It is already a problem even with the restrictions. Derivative works without royalties implies you would get countless copy-pasted works with the minimum amount of changes done to claim they are derivative. It already happens nowadays with things that try to claim they are not derivative works but completely new things when it is clear they are not. Both these things are already super expensive to keep track and defend for small companies. If anything, what should be done is make them cheaper. The 70 years is the only thing I agree. 10 is quite short. 20 would be fair and way better than the 70.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    I'm sure many people are going to disagree with this, but authors should only receive income if people think their work is valuable enough to be rewarded for it. There will always be selfish people that would rather just download a copy rather than support an author. But I don't think simply writing a book entitles you to income. It was your choice to write it, nobody paid you to (if they did, then you are already paid for the work). If you choose to write a book, and nobody wants to pay you for it, then how good actually is it? I have perhaps a different view of the arts to some people. I see them as good, noble pursuits in and of themselves. They should be done for their own sake. Art and literature was in my opinion, at its highest point, when the motivation for profit was secondary to the motivation for expression and exploration. As such, I see no reason for we as a society to restrict what people can and can't do with the stories, artistic works, and cultural works of our society. They best serve the interests of a society when they are free to spread, free to be shared, and free to be adapted. I don't believe in artificial scarcity. If the only way for me to get access to a book is to pay a publisher for it, then it's worth has been artificially increased. I value the experience of going to the theatre, so I will still buy a ticket even if I can pirate the film a couple months later. I value seeing a musical artist perform live, so I will pay for a concert even if I can download their album for free. I value possessing hard copies of good works, so I will pay for them to support the author even if I can download the PDF for free. This is how you separate the truly valued works, from the works that have been artificially given a monetary value for the sake of profit raising. And I hate to say it, but our social media frenzied society has inflated everybody's self worth. Just because you can publish an ebook in 3 clicks, doesn't mean it is good literature, and doesn't mean it is worth paying for. Copyright law which makes bad literature valuable is a bad law. Good literature will always be good, regardless of any laws that exist to protect it from distribution.

No, copyright restricts copying and derivative works without royalties. As I said in my comment, I propose the restriction only be on profiting from work, and for a much shorter period of time than currently (70 years for creative works? Absurd. 10 years is far more appropriate).

slx26 6y ago
I would actually go even further and say that the only restriction we should eventually need is crediting the original author. Potential individual profit (as in economic profit) makes sense in the current world where the distribution of resources is terrible and you want to be able to capitalize on your ideas. But ideally, if that's not an issue in the future, all you could reasonably want is "acknowledgement for your contributions". Even there the line is hard to draw, but I find myself more and more aligned with this perspective lately. Might still be too egocentric, though, and maybe not even "acknowledgement" is necessary. Maybe if acknowledgement was culturally more widespread even a law like this wouldn't make sense to me.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
  That is a vacuous statement. Yes, profit is only a problem if money is a problem. But given money is still used by society (and will be used for decades), it is pretty obvious you cannot remove profit. Do it, and only rich people will be able to create. No Harry Potter for us.
  - slx26 6y ago
    Well, I feel your reply is somewhat uncharitable. I mean, I said "ideally", and I didn't talk about money disappearing, only about, as you expressed, "money [not] being a problem". Which you might still consider naive, fair enough, but that's another story. And honestly, even if in practice it makes no immediate difference, telling apart the "moral" issues and the practical ones is relevant for analysis and defining the direction we want to move towards.
luckylion 6y ago
Limiting it to "profiting" opens up a giant load of issues. Is an artist not profiting from their art, do they not pay the rent with it, increase their reputation? Isn't a scientist profiting from their research, as results will also benefit their reputation and get them the next grant or tenure position / promotion? If you're limiting it to "immediate profit", I guess Amazon could've used anything and everything because they never made a profit until 2001. I very much agree regarding the years, though. And it's not even 70 years, it's 70 years after the creator's death.
jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
That wouldn't work. Free copies, even if you restrict profiting on the copies, implies the value effectively goes to zero. Most things can be digitally copied for free (art, books, software...). It is already a problem even with the restrictions. Derivative works without royalties implies you would get countless copy-pasted works with the minimum amount of changes done to claim they are derivative. It already happens nowadays with things that try to claim they are not derivative works but completely new things when it is clear they are not. Both these things are already super expensive to keep track and defend for small companies. If anything, what should be done is make them cheaper. The 70 years is the only thing I agree. 10 is quite short. 20 would be fair and way better than the 70.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  I'm sure many people are going to disagree with this, but authors should only receive income if people think their work is valuable enough to be rewarded for it. There will always be selfish people that would rather just download a copy rather than support an author. But I don't think simply writing a book entitles you to income. It was your choice to write it, nobody paid you to (if they did, then you are already paid for the work). If you choose to write a book, and nobody wants to pay you for it, then how good actually is it? I have perhaps a different view of the arts to some people. I see them as good, noble pursuits in and of themselves. They should be done for their own sake. Art and literature was in my opinion, at its highest point, when the motivation for profit was secondary to the motivation for expression and exploration. As such, I see no reason for we as a society to restrict what people can and can't do with the stories, artistic works, and cultural works of our society. They best serve the interests of a society when they are free to spread, free to be shared, and free to be adapted. I don't believe in artificial scarcity. If the only way for me to get access to a book is to pay a publisher for it, then it's worth has been artificially increased. I value the experience of going to the theatre, so I will still buy a ticket even if I can pirate the film a couple months later. I value seeing a musical artist perform live, so I will pay for a concert even if I can download their album for free. I value possessing hard copies of good works, so I will pay for them to support the author even if I can download the PDF for free. This is how you separate the truly valued works, from the works that have been artificially given a monetary value for the sake of profit raising. And I hate to say it, but our social media frenzied society has inflated everybody's self worth. Just because you can publish an ebook in 3 clicks, doesn't mean it is good literature, and doesn't mean it is worth paying for. Copyright law which makes bad literature valuable is a bad law. Good literature will always be good, regardless of any laws that exist to protect it from distribution.