4 ms·

There's never been more content available for cheaper than right now. What mythical "damage to the culture" is taking place?

pmoriarty 5y ago
Since, as you acknowledge, there's an enormous amount of content available, then we don't need to give it any special protection using copyright, do we?
- dageshi 5y ago
  Well from my pov just because there's lots of it doesn't mean it's interchangeable? I think legal protections on what you create gives you an avenue towards making a full time career out of what you do. And I don't think the patreons or kickstarters of the world replace that because it firstly makes you a slave to your audience and secondly forces you to become a marketer which probably great disadvantages anyone who isn't either good at that or who isn't already comfortably well off enough to afford the time to get good at it. Finally I think it would greatly decrease the quantity and quality because frankly your time would be better spent elsewhere on things that can support you financially. Thankfully, it's never going to happen so it's a bit of a hypothetical conversation.
handrous 5y ago
All the wonderful unauthorized sequels, medium-conversions, re-makes, re-mixes, et c., that would have come to be seen as on par with or better than the originals, and possibly even more commercially successful, that aren't being made. Inherently multi-media works (film, games, that kind of thing) not being able to choose freely from non-super-old popular media to include, without having to both beg permission and pay someone else (as with soundtrack music, for example). Disney shouldn't own Star Wars now, to pick one example. Everyone should own it. Any person or company who wants to try to make a go at financing and selling a new entry, or a re-make, should be free to. Film-makers who grew up on it and want to put their spin on it without having to get permission first, should be able to try. Companies still making sequels to or remakes of 80s games should have to face competition from others trying to make better sequels or remakes of those games. The best recorded version of the Beatles' oeuvre might well be one that won't ever exist now, because the person who'd have made it couldn't have made made any money at it, and died or will die of old age before the copyright expires, even though they weren't born when Let it Be was released. I hesitate to name a number (14 seems fine, though, and 28 not catastrophic if you want a longer duration that covers a large portion of a normal person's working adult life) but what we've got now is way too long.
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  I get what you're going for but it would be an unmitigated disaster essentially reducing the value of all creative output to 0. So no thanks.
  - handrous 5y ago
    Why would only being able to exclusively make money off a published work for 1/3 of a lifetime reduce the value of creative output to 0?
    - breakfastduck 5y ago
      Because not everything is an overnight success. Someone could make a song/comic that never gets popular. Years later, someone takes it now it's free from copyright, uses it and achieves popularity. The original creator is still alive and has had nothing back. Even further, if it has no copyright huge companies like spotify would not have to pay any royalties at all to sell or distribute music, pocketing everything themselves. I'd rather the creator got the money.
      - handrous 5y ago
        OK. And that drives the value of creative output to zero... how? To zero. How? I'm not seeing the part where the possibility that one's work might flop for a decade or three and then be made a smash-hit by someone else keeps people from creating almost exactly as much original art as they do now. I'd expect the effect on behavior to be negligible, especially with terms closer to 30 years. Meanwhile it would free up an awful lot of material for creative inspiration. I have no doubt that would result in more good art, overall.
        breakfastduck 5y ago
        And again you're missing the point. I'm not disputing that it would give an increase in creativity, but it would open countless doors for huge corporations to completely exploit creatives. You're encouraging a situation where it becomes completely nonviable to be an artist commercially. It's already bad enough as it is at the moment with Spotify et all pocketing the vast majority of proceeds. It's shocking to me that you're willing to completely overlook the fairness of the system in return for 'more art'. It is not appropriate whatsoever to strip ANYONE of their ownership of a piece of art they have created. Why do you feel entitled to that?

pmoriarty 5y ago

Since, as you acknowledge, there's an enormous amount of content available, then we don't need to give it any special protection using copyright, do we?

dageshi 5y ago
Well from my pov just because there's lots of it doesn't mean it's interchangeable? I think legal protections on what you create gives you an avenue towards making a full time career out of what you do. And I don't think the patreons or kickstarters of the world replace that because it firstly makes you a slave to your audience and secondly forces you to become a marketer which probably great disadvantages anyone who isn't either good at that or who isn't already comfortably well off enough to afford the time to get good at it. Finally I think it would greatly decrease the quantity and quality because frankly your time would be better spent elsewhere on things that can support you financially. Thankfully, it's never going to happen so it's a bit of a hypothetical conversation.

handrous 5y ago

All the wonderful unauthorized sequels, medium-conversions, re-makes, re-mixes, et c., that would have come to be seen as on par with or better than the originals, and possibly even more commercially successful, that aren't being made. Inherently multi-media works (film, games, that kind of thing) not being able to choose freely from non-super-old popular media to include, without having to both beg permission and pay someone else (as with soundtrack music, for example). Disney shouldn't own Star Wars now, to pick one example. Everyone should own it. Any person or company who wants to try to make a go at financing and selling a new entry, or a re-make, should be free to. Film-makers who grew up on it and want to put their spin on it without having to get permission first, should be able to try. Companies still making sequels to or remakes of 80s games should have to face competition from others trying to make better sequels or remakes of those games. The best recorded version of the Beatles' oeuvre might well be one that won't ever exist now, because the person who'd have made it couldn't have made made any money at it, and died or will die of old age before the copyright expires, even though they weren't born when Let it Be was released. I hesitate to name a number (14 seems fine, though, and 28 not catastrophic if you want a longer duration that covers a large portion of a normal person's working adult life) but what we've got now is way too long.

breakfastduck 5y ago
I get what you're going for but it would be an unmitigated disaster essentially reducing the value of all creative output to 0. So no thanks.
- handrous 5y ago
  Why would only being able to exclusively make money off a published work for 1/3 of a lifetime reduce the value of creative output to 0?
  - breakfastduck 5y ago
    Because not everything is an overnight success. Someone could make a song/comic that never gets popular. Years later, someone takes it now it's free from copyright, uses it and achieves popularity. The original creator is still alive and has had nothing back. Even further, if it has no copyright huge companies like spotify would not have to pay any royalties at all to sell or distribute music, pocketing everything themselves. I'd rather the creator got the money.
    - handrous 5y ago
      OK. And that drives the value of creative output to zero... how? To zero. How? I'm not seeing the part where the possibility that one's work might flop for a decade or three and then be made a smash-hit by someone else keeps people from creating almost exactly as much original art as they do now. I'd expect the effect on behavior to be negligible, especially with terms closer to 30 years. Meanwhile it would free up an awful lot of material for creative inspiration. I have no doubt that would result in more good art, overall.
      - breakfastduck 5y ago
        And again you're missing the point. I'm not disputing that it would give an increase in creativity, but it would open countless doors for huge corporations to completely exploit creatives. You're encouraging a situation where it becomes completely nonviable to be an artist commercially. It's already bad enough as it is at the moment with Spotify et all pocketing the vast majority of proceeds. It's shocking to me that you're willing to completely overlook the fairness of the system in return for 'more art'. It is not appropriate whatsoever to strip ANYONE of their ownership of a piece of art they have created. Why do you feel entitled to that?