3 ms·

> copyright should not exist at all Copyright is not just about software. Imagine a world in which you write a novel, let's call it Harry Potter, and publish

by biztos 6y ago

> copyright should not exist at all Copyright is not just about software. Imagine a world in which you write a novel, let's call it Harry Potter, and publish it. And then I see people liking it, so I publish it too, but I can sell it cheaper because I don't have to recoup the costs of having written it. Or imagine you write and record a song, let's call it Revolution. A shoe company can use that exact recording in an advertisement without paying you. I respect the radicality of your position, but I hope you understand you are proposing to burn the creative arts to the ground.

int_19h 6y ago
Don't assume that those who are against all copyright hold this position in isolation from other politics. Some of us think that much of the economy needs to change in significant ways, and copyright would be just one aspect of that. And there are changes that aren't even all that radical, that are enough to make a counterpoint here. For example, with a sufficiently generous UBI, a lot more people would be able to pursue arts for the sake of arts. One could reasonably argue that removing the profit motive would not only not break such an arrangement, but improve the quality of the output.
wstrange 6y ago
The creative arts existed long before copyright was a thing
triceratops 6y ago
Some of the greatest works of creative art in human history were created with no copyright. I respect that copyright makes it possible for creators to get paid, but that's not the same as "creative endeavor would vanish without copyright".
cwkoss 6y ago
Destroying copyright would make some business models go extinct. However, society should use IP laws to maximize the societal goods of creation, not to keep the entrenched players' businesses profitable. There are hundreds of ways to monetize creative works. It's laughable to think that creativity will cease if we don't allow 70 year rent-seeking on the products of that effort. I think 90%+ percent of "societally useful" IP revenue would be preserved if copyright terms were only 1 year. If it was eliminated entirely, artists would move to crowdfunding and commission based methods of getting paid for creation. I think the first half of last century's music industry is an interesting example: back then the vast majority of artists rose to prominence by playing already-popular songs before transitioning into their own songwriting. How much is creativity squelched by the current system where licensing is at the arbitrary discretion of the IP owner, and how should society weigh this against the potential reduced economic incentive to create works if cultural products become freely distributable?
- thu2111 6y ago
  I think what you'd see instead is a widespread destruction of some kinds of creative industries, combined with a retreat to technology platforms that enforce copyright with technological rather than legal means. See: the video games industry and the domination of consoles, the iOS App Store. Video games are protected by copyright but it doesn't have much teeth, modulo occasional arrests of crack authors. What happened was not that people gave up on charging for video games, but rather it created a market for sufficiently secure platforms that piracy was very hard.
- redwall_hp 6y ago
  The greatest way to support art is UBI. Why should creativity be subject to the arbitrary whims of the lowest common denominator? For every Harry Potter there are hundreds of authors who can't even make enough to write full time. And some of what we consider to be quality literature would never be commercially successful in a modern context.
inglor_cz 6y ago
I make money on copyright and I would still be for - at least - significant shortening of the terms. 10 years from creation = automatic and free. More than that for an exponentially rising yearly fee. 11th year 100 dollars, 12th year 200 dollars, 13th year 400 dollars etc. There would be another advantage, a searchable database of copyrighted items older than 10 years.

by biztos 6y ago

int_19h 6y ago

Don't assume that those who are against all copyright hold this position in isolation from other politics. Some of us think that much of the economy needs to change in significant ways, and copyright would be just one aspect of that. And there are changes that aren't even all that radical, that are enough to make a counterpoint here. For example, with a sufficiently generous UBI, a lot more people would be able to pursue arts for the sake of arts. One could reasonably argue that removing the profit motive would not only not break such an arrangement, but improve the quality of the output.

wstrange 6y ago

The creative arts existed long before copyright was a thing

triceratops 6y ago

Some of the greatest works of creative art in human history were created with no copyright. I respect that copyright makes it possible for creators to get paid, but that's not the same as "creative endeavor would vanish without copyright".

cwkoss 6y ago

Destroying copyright would make some business models go extinct. However, society should use IP laws to maximize the societal goods of creation, not to keep the entrenched players' businesses profitable. There are hundreds of ways to monetize creative works. It's laughable to think that creativity will cease if we don't allow 70 year rent-seeking on the products of that effort. I think 90%+ percent of "societally useful" IP revenue would be preserved if copyright terms were only 1 year. If it was eliminated entirely, artists would move to crowdfunding and commission based methods of getting paid for creation. I think the first half of last century's music industry is an interesting example: back then the vast majority of artists rose to prominence by playing already-popular songs before transitioning into their own songwriting. How much is creativity squelched by the current system where licensing is at the arbitrary discretion of the IP owner, and how should society weigh this against the potential reduced economic incentive to create works if cultural products become freely distributable?

thu2111 6y ago
I think what you'd see instead is a widespread destruction of some kinds of creative industries, combined with a retreat to technology platforms that enforce copyright with technological rather than legal means. See: the video games industry and the domination of consoles, the iOS App Store. Video games are protected by copyright but it doesn't have much teeth, modulo occasional arrests of crack authors. What happened was not that people gave up on charging for video games, but rather it created a market for sufficiently secure platforms that piracy was very hard.
redwall_hp 6y ago
The greatest way to support art is UBI. Why should creativity be subject to the arbitrary whims of the lowest common denominator? For every Harry Potter there are hundreds of authors who can't even make enough to write full time. And some of what we consider to be quality literature would never be commercially successful in a modern context.

inglor_cz 6y ago

I make money on copyright and I would still be for - at least - significant shortening of the terms. 10 years from creation = automatic and free. More than that for an exponentially rising yearly fee. 11th year 100 dollars, 12th year 200 dollars, 13th year 400 dollars etc. There would be another advantage, a searchable database of copyrighted items older than 10 years.