3 ms·

Gosh, I'm pretty much as anti-copyright/pro-freedom of information as anyone you would ever meet. However, I think there has to be a reasonable way to implemen

Gosh, I'm pretty much as anti-copyright/pro-freedom of information as anyone you would ever meet. However, I think there has to be a reasonable way to implement copyright so that artists can get paid for their creations in a reliable way. A third party shouldn't be able to host/index a bunch of someone else's IP, sell ads, and make bank at the expense of writers, musicians, etc. On the other hand, Michael Jackson is dead. Why is his music still copyrighted? The material has earned zillions of dollars already. The ownership of those rights by corporate randos is ridiculous. Copyright holders have, in my lifetime, behaved in a ridiculous way--even abusively towards original artists via DMCA take downs. But the notion of copyright is still important. All that said, platforms that pay artists pennies while making billions on the activity they attract are probably a bigger threat to art these day. That also needs to be dealt with.

nybble41 6y ago
> Gosh, I'm pretty much as anti-copyright/pro-freedom of information as anyone you would ever meet. Clearly you've never actually met anyone who was anti-copyright / pro-freedom of information. To begin with, they're not going to be looking for "a reasonable way to implement copyright" or saying things like "the notion of copyright is still important". Kind of goes against the whole anti-copyright mentality. > A third party shouldn't be able to host/index a bunch of someone else's IP, sell ads, and make bank at the expense of writers, musicians, etc. There is no "at the expense of…". The third party is performing hosting and indexing services and getting paid for that work. They benefit, the users of the site benefit, no one else loses anything. In the absence of copyright anyone else could do the same, so it's naturally going to be a low-margin business. If we want artists to get paid in a reliable way, without wrecking the rest of society in the process, we need to look beyond copyright, to patronage, crowdfunding, sponsorship, open collaboration, and other models. The presence of copyright doesn't guarantee that artists get paid. It does ensure that we're actively crippling our technology, erecting barriers between people, undermining the art itself by making it all about money, encouraging contempt for the law (not entirely a bad thing IMHO when the law is unjust), and creating a parasitic copyright industry which leeches off of both the public in general and artists in particular, in the end serving no one but itself.
- bonestormii_ 6y ago
  I am fully against the practices of illegitimate DMCA notices, suing torrenters, etc. As I said, I also think terms of copyright should be deeply constrained and nontransferable upon death. But like, megaupload? Why should such a business model be allowed to exist? 100% parasitic. This is drastically different from what we know today. Patronage? Who if not the people acquiring the material? Crowd funding? Won’t that be in competition with the pirated commodity? Sponsorship, like ads in the content? I’d rather pay an artist for content for a reasonable price and duration, while shutting down excessive suits. Get off your high horse. It’s a complicated issue. The whole web runs on sponsorship and ads and it sucks horribly. There are balanced approaches worth considering. Content has value.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    You said: >> Gosh, I'm pretty much as anti-copyright/pro-freedom of information as anyone you would ever meet. You aren't even close. Stopping just short of copyright maximalism doesn't make you anti-copyright. It makes you slightly more reasonable, but you're still on the opposite side of this particular debate. > But like, megaupload? Why should such a business model be allowed to exist? 100% parasitic. What's so parasitic about a file hosting service? They get paid a premium right now because they're taking on a bunch of legal risk on behalf of their users. You can blame any surplus profits squarely on copyright law itself. > Patronage? Who if not the people acquiring the material? The patrons normally would be the ones acquiring the original copies, yes. At that point it would be up to them to decide what to do with those copies. Patrons would normally also receive credit for funding the production of the work. This model works well in situations where there is social capital (or simply a sense of self-worth) linked to being known as a "patron of the arts". > Crowd funding? Won’t that be in competition with the pirated commodity? You're thinking of pre-sales. Crowdfunding is more akin to patronage, just with a broader audience. Backers might get some perks, such as public credit or merchandise, but there is no guarantee of exclusivity. The resulting work may or may not be made available directly to the public, though the distributed nature of crowdfunding pretty much guarantees that at least one backer would "defect" and make their copy available shortly after the initial release. > Sponsorship, like ads in the content? Product placement is one form of sponsorship. It can be done well, or poorly. Quite a bit of quality content has been produced for free distribution through unobtrusive sponsorship arrangements. Sometimes content that people are interested in for its own sake also incidentally happens to benefit someone, so they're willing to pay for its production even without any direct promotion.

nybble41 6y ago

> Gosh, I'm pretty much as anti-copyright/pro-freedom of information as anyone you would ever meet. Clearly you've never actually met anyone who was anti-copyright / pro-freedom of information. To begin with, they're not going to be looking for "a reasonable way to implement copyright" or saying things like "the notion of copyright is still important". Kind of goes against the whole anti-copyright mentality. > A third party shouldn't be able to host/index a bunch of someone else's IP, sell ads, and make bank at the expense of writers, musicians, etc. There is no "at the expense of…". The third party is performing hosting and indexing services and getting paid for that work. They benefit, the users of the site benefit, no one else loses anything. In the absence of copyright anyone else could do the same, so it's naturally going to be a low-margin business. If we want artists to get paid in a reliable way, without wrecking the rest of society in the process, we need to look beyond copyright, to patronage, crowdfunding, sponsorship, open collaboration, and other models. The presence of copyright doesn't guarantee that artists get paid. It does ensure that we're actively crippling our technology, erecting barriers between people, undermining the art itself by making it all about money, encouraging contempt for the law (not entirely a bad thing IMHO when the law is unjust), and creating a parasitic copyright industry which leeches off of both the public in general and artists in particular, in the end serving no one but itself.

bonestormii_ 6y ago
I am fully against the practices of illegitimate DMCA notices, suing torrenters, etc. As I said, I also think terms of copyright should be deeply constrained and nontransferable upon death. But like, megaupload? Why should such a business model be allowed to exist? 100% parasitic. This is drastically different from what we know today. Patronage? Who if not the people acquiring the material? Crowd funding? Won’t that be in competition with the pirated commodity? Sponsorship, like ads in the content? I’d rather pay an artist for content for a reasonable price and duration, while shutting down excessive suits. Get off your high horse. It’s a complicated issue. The whole web runs on sponsorship and ads and it sucks horribly. There are balanced approaches worth considering. Content has value.
- nybble41 6y ago
  You said: >> Gosh, I'm pretty much as anti-copyright/pro-freedom of information as anyone you would ever meet. You aren't even close. Stopping just short of copyright maximalism doesn't make you anti-copyright. It makes you slightly more reasonable, but you're still on the opposite side of this particular debate. > But like, megaupload? Why should such a business model be allowed to exist? 100% parasitic. What's so parasitic about a file hosting service? They get paid a premium right now because they're taking on a bunch of legal risk on behalf of their users. You can blame any surplus profits squarely on copyright law itself. > Patronage? Who if not the people acquiring the material? The patrons normally would be the ones acquiring the original copies, yes. At that point it would be up to them to decide what to do with those copies. Patrons would normally also receive credit for funding the production of the work. This model works well in situations where there is social capital (or simply a sense of self-worth) linked to being known as a "patron of the arts". > Crowd funding? Won’t that be in competition with the pirated commodity? You're thinking of pre-sales. Crowdfunding is more akin to patronage, just with a broader audience. Backers might get some perks, such as public credit or merchandise, but there is no guarantee of exclusivity. The resulting work may or may not be made available directly to the public, though the distributed nature of crowdfunding pretty much guarantees that at least one backer would "defect" and make their copy available shortly after the initial release. > Sponsorship, like ads in the content? Product placement is one form of sponsorship. It can be done well, or poorly. Quite a bit of quality content has been produced for free distribution through unobtrusive sponsorship arrangements. Sometimes content that people are interested in for its own sake also incidentally happens to benefit someone, so they're willing to pay for its production even without any direct promotion.