4 ms·

You'll have to enlighten me. What are the better ways? Why should you not own copyright to that which you produce?

toyg 6y ago
> Why should you not own copyright to that which you produce? You don't want to use that line of argument, since authors and musicians are among the very few categories of workers with that privilege. As much as I agree with you (and actually think that privilege to be expanded to all workers), you won't find any solidarity from the common public on that line.
- falcolas 6y ago
  > since authors and musicians are among the very few categories of workers with that privilege Don't forget software developers. All of our various licenses (and even our work-for-hire for various companies) relies upon copyright as well. There's also reporters, photographers, journalists, YouTube content creators, TV, and movies, just to name a few off the top of my head.
  - toyg 6y ago
    In practice, very few of these actually benefit from copyright. Most do work-for-hire, which is effectively a negation or renounce to one’s IP rights; and opensource is effectively a way to do the same. The ones who can actually extract direct benefit from IP are “ the 1%”, so to speak.
- justynadorsz 6y ago
  This is interesting. I didn't know that most people were against copyright.
juancn 6y ago
Copyright and patents creates artificial scarcity. The things protected are not scarce, they are abundant. Ideas and information are easy to copy/reproduce. So we built a fake framework on top of something plentiful and cheap to copy, to make it more expensive so some people can make money out of it.
- falcolas 6y ago
  I agree, they're easy to copy and reproduce. But more importantly, they are not easy to produce in the first place. How do you suggest an author (artist, musician, etc) make a living, if it takes them 6 months of normal working hours to produce a book and they get an expected $0 of revenue from that book?
  - juancn 6y ago
    Donations and live performances as it used to work. Find a Maecenas.
  - ccsnags 6y ago
    Spending time on something people aren’t willing to pay for is always a waste of time, whether you’re writing a book or digging holes. We need to stop assuming that having no copyright means that the work cannot be monetized. It just can’t be monetized as if it was a physical object or service rendered. Vinyl records, tee shirts, patronage, book signings, lectures, anything that isn’t copyright dependent can be monetized easily. The fans of art are aware that paying for it will help create more art they like. This is a personal connection that the fan has with the artist and keeps the art accessible for the casuals.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      We had that once upon a time (the original version of Patronage), and it resulted in some, but not very much, artwork in the grand scheme of things. Nowhere near the amount we enjoy today with our spare-change subscriptions. Copyright also allows more creators to create without requiring them to be a live personality as well; to split their time between creating and hustling for money.
      - donovanian 6y ago
        > and it resulted in some, but not very much, artwork in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure I follow, my understanding is that patronage, say from the Medici family, led to a proliferation of art.

toyg 6y ago

> Why should you not own copyright to that which you produce? You don't want to use that line of argument, since authors and musicians are among the very few categories of workers with that privilege. As much as I agree with you (and actually think that privilege to be expanded to all workers), you won't find any solidarity from the common public on that line.

falcolas 6y ago
> since authors and musicians are among the very few categories of workers with that privilege Don't forget software developers. All of our various licenses (and even our work-for-hire for various companies) relies upon copyright as well. There's also reporters, photographers, journalists, YouTube content creators, TV, and movies, just to name a few off the top of my head.
- toyg 6y ago
  In practice, very few of these actually benefit from copyright. Most do work-for-hire, which is effectively a negation or renounce to one’s IP rights; and opensource is effectively a way to do the same. The ones who can actually extract direct benefit from IP are “ the 1%”, so to speak.
justynadorsz 6y ago
This is interesting. I didn't know that most people were against copyright.

juancn 6y ago

Copyright and patents creates artificial scarcity. The things protected are not scarce, they are abundant. Ideas and information are easy to copy/reproduce. So we built a fake framework on top of something plentiful and cheap to copy, to make it more expensive so some people can make money out of it.

falcolas 6y ago
I agree, they're easy to copy and reproduce. But more importantly, they are not easy to produce in the first place. How do you suggest an author (artist, musician, etc) make a living, if it takes them 6 months of normal working hours to produce a book and they get an expected $0 of revenue from that book?
- juancn 6y ago
  Donations and live performances as it used to work. Find a Maecenas.
- ccsnags 6y ago
  Spending time on something people aren’t willing to pay for is always a waste of time, whether you’re writing a book or digging holes. We need to stop assuming that having no copyright means that the work cannot be monetized. It just can’t be monetized as if it was a physical object or service rendered. Vinyl records, tee shirts, patronage, book signings, lectures, anything that isn’t copyright dependent can be monetized easily. The fans of art are aware that paying for it will help create more art they like. This is a personal connection that the fan has with the artist and keeps the art accessible for the casuals.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    We had that once upon a time (the original version of Patronage), and it resulted in some, but not very much, artwork in the grand scheme of things. Nowhere near the amount we enjoy today with our spare-change subscriptions. Copyright also allows more creators to create without requiring them to be a live personality as well; to split their time between creating and hustling for money.
    - donovanian 6y ago
      > and it resulted in some, but not very much, artwork in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure I follow, my understanding is that patronage, say from the Medici family, led to a proliferation of art.