3 ms·

The question of whether copyright serves the minority or the majority is going to depend very much on who you ask. If you ask the typical hacker, who tends to s

The question of whether copyright serves the minority or the majority is going to depend very much on who you ask. If you ask the typical hacker, who tends to see digital works as generic stuff in the "tubes", copyright is annoying inefficiency. For people that create that content though, copyright is what makes it possible for them to put food on the table and, more importantly, focus with the attention that good work requires. If it becomes impossible for people to make a living creating digital work you're soon going to have a super-efficient network of tubes full of nothing but shit.

redthrowaway 15y ago
The history of technology is one of disrupting old industries. The death of quality, be it content, hand-made goods, or mom and pop shops, has been heralded many times. Each time, somebody manages to find a way to make good products. If the movie industry refuses to sell movies that aren't on plastic, the Internet will obsolesce them. That will not spell the end of video as entertainment, as it will leave a void to be filled by somebody smarter and faster. MP3s didn't kill music, despite all the dire warnings. The news is struggling, but sites like huffpo have shown you can make money giving away news. There's no reason someone can't come up with a model whereby they can make money making good news. Copyright, as it was intended, is fine. I make something, that means I can sell it, not you. I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with limiting users, and I'm certainly not okay with suing them or charging them with crimes. The laws, as they are being written, enable copyright holders to pursue the latter course of action as an alternative to innovating and adapting. That, I am not okay with. There's nothing stopping anyone from making money with quality content on the Internet, save the confines of their own lack of imagination.
- cageface 15y ago
  I agree that the music & film industries have done dumb, counter-productive things and I agree also agree that the way forward is to provide better and more convenient service, like Netflix. But I also hear a lot of people use these arguments to rationalize violating copyrights, and I think that's wrong.

redthrowaway 15y ago

The history of technology is one of disrupting old industries. The death of quality, be it content, hand-made goods, or mom and pop shops, has been heralded many times. Each time, somebody manages to find a way to make good products. If the movie industry refuses to sell movies that aren't on plastic, the Internet will obsolesce them. That will not spell the end of video as entertainment, as it will leave a void to be filled by somebody smarter and faster. MP3s didn't kill music, despite all the dire warnings. The news is struggling, but sites like huffpo have shown you can make money giving away news. There's no reason someone can't come up with a model whereby they can make money making good news. Copyright, as it was intended, is fine. I make something, that means I can sell it, not you. I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with limiting users, and I'm certainly not okay with suing them or charging them with crimes. The laws, as they are being written, enable copyright holders to pursue the latter course of action as an alternative to innovating and adapting. That, I am not okay with. There's nothing stopping anyone from making money with quality content on the Internet, save the confines of their own lack of imagination.

cageface 15y ago
I agree that the music & film industries have done dumb, counter-productive things and I agree also agree that the way forward is to provide better and more convenient service, like Netflix. But I also hear a lot of people use these arguments to rationalize violating copyrights, and I think that's wrong.