6 ms·
Actually I doubt that you can avoid abusing current copyright laws. Also because there is no such "right" in nature. If you wish monopoly call it for what it i
by lovelyviking 5y ago
Actually I doubt that you can avoid abusing current copyright laws.
Also because there is no such "right" in nature. If you wish monopoly call it for what it is and have laws in accordance. Such "right" shouldn't exist in the first place or at least in the current form.
Copy process is the way people learn and progress. Copy process is essential for spreading knowledge and development.
When you learn you copy. When you sing you copy. When you speak you copy. When you teach you copy. When you think you copy. People copy their parents. You are the mixed copy of your parents plus mixed copy of other things and factors.
When you show to others what you did you copy too.
I give you a concrete example. I was dancing Argentinian tango in a charity event and wanted to show record of it to other people. I've got copyright claim on YouTube.
I was not even demonstrating music - I was demonstrating Dancing! The music played in the background was created somewhere in 1930-1940. The music played at the event was not even original composition. It was a cover done by local artist. And it was played live during the event with improvisations. Unfortunately I couldn't show this event to anyone else because I've got copyright claim on YouTube channel. I couldn't even share the record with my friends as private link. I couldn't even show the video to my partner for goodness sake. If this is not idiocy resulting from so called "copyright" then what is?
Unlimited copy process is crucial to arts especially because you should feel free to express yourself and only this way something new can appear.
Copy is a natural process and any attempt to regulate it or regulate it too much can and will create more problems than it solves!
Perhaps it's time to start listening RMS more carefully. This is one about copyright:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4
- redwall_hp 5y agoBetter terms for copyright include "imaginary property" and "bourgeoise pseudocapital." Not only does copyright hinder creativity and infringe upon your natural right to copy, but it doesn't even benefit artists so much as companies who pay them a pittance while wielding the law as a cudgel to protect their imaginary fiefdom. The world needs less ownership, not more.
- cdot2 5y agoPeople will complain about copyright precisely until they have some creative work of theirs sold by someone else. Professional authors cannot exist without copyright.
- lovelyviking 5y agoI complain about copyright precisely because I cannot even show my creative work. And if I'll try to upload it anywhere where people are then I will be stripped off any of my "rights" in that very moment. So how copyright helps in that case?
- DreamScatter 5y agoYour problem wasn't an issue with copyright but with YouTube's approach to handling copyright.
- TeeMassive 5y agoCopyright is a way to encourage the production of new culture. Even if it is abused it doesn't remove all of its merits. Countries with weak copyright laws do produce or export content and are barely heard of and the reason why is not hard to deduce: all their top talents can't live out of what they produce and therefore go elsewhere. If you really want to go the deconstruction route, laws are unnatural but murder and assault are found in nature everywhere and therefore we're all doing it wrong. Now if you excuse me I have to take care of my collection of scalps /s.
- lovelyviking 5y ago>Copyright is a way to encourage the production of new culture. Perhaps it just was? Things evolved. Digital tools now make everyone face the law that was invented for publishers while not every person is even aware about publishing nor wish to deal with it. People simply try to express themselves and punished for that like they are criminals. I do not think this is a way to encourage the production of new culture today. From encouraging tool in the past as it perhaps was today it become a tool for opression of any form of self-expression because the environment has changed. Now it does exactly the opposite of what it suppose to do. >Now if you excuse me I have to take care of my collection of scalps While you take care of your collection of scalps please notice how valuable such activity was back then and how useless it is now.
- TeeMassive 5y agoYou basically use one single anecdote while YouTube has literally made more millionaires among independent content creator than mainstream TV did in all its existence. The reason they can produce the content they do is that they can take have copyright protecting their work. The notion that copyright is "a tool for oppression of any form of self-expression" is false just on its face. And if it weren't for for copyright most of programmers wouldn't have a decent salary and open source projects would have less protection. There are certainly reforms needed in IP, but abolishing it completely is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- 5y ago