3 ms·

Another opportunity to state the obvious, which is: We should not let governments restrict the dissemination and copying of information - even if they codify it

Another opportunity to state the obvious, which is: We should not let governments restrict the dissemination and copying of information - even if they codify it in law and threaten people with jail and fines. Copyrights (other than the right of attribution and such) are essentially a conspiracy of publishers' cartels, going back to 17th century British law: "An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Books and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166... followed by the statute of Anne etc.

pegas1 5y ago
The copyright -- as long as it serves the author, not to be stolen by the publisher -- is the only source of income to authors outside of the academic world. So, that part has to be preserved. And generally, authors should have a say about the use of their work. Only misuse of the copyright (actually a forceful possession) should be restricted.
- einpoklum 5y ago
  > So, that part has to be preserved. Even if everything else you'd said was true - your conclusion does not follow. A system in which the state enforces prevention of copying is an anathema and must be dismantled. The access of authors to copy-rent incoming does not justify its existence. > The copyright is the only source of income to authors outside of the academic world. That's not true, in two aspects. First, there are multiple other potential sources of income for authors of popular works. Second, most authors of most works don't make money off of the copyright anyway, as not very many people/organizations pay for copies. > And generally, authors should have a say about the use of their work. I disagree. Just like poets don't have a say about the use of their poems, so should the case be about articles, books, software, composed music etc. > as long as it serves the author, not to be stolen by the publisher IIANM, most copy-rent money goes to publishers, not authors.
- Siira 5y ago
  10 years should be enough for the authors. The current laws just serve the corporations. Besides, anyone wanting to use copyright for their creations should be mandated to publicly release the source (code, material, etc) of their product after the copyright ends.

pegas1 5y ago

The copyright -- as long as it serves the author, not to be stolen by the publisher -- is the only source of income to authors outside of the academic world. So, that part has to be preserved. And generally, authors should have a say about the use of their work. Only misuse of the copyright (actually a forceful possession) should be restricted.

einpoklum 5y ago
> So, that part has to be preserved. Even if everything else you'd said was true - your conclusion does not follow. A system in which the state enforces prevention of copying is an anathema and must be dismantled. The access of authors to copy-rent incoming does not justify its existence. > The copyright is the only source of income to authors outside of the academic world. That's not true, in two aspects. First, there are multiple other potential sources of income for authors of popular works. Second, most authors of most works don't make money off of the copyright anyway, as not very many people/organizations pay for copies. > And generally, authors should have a say about the use of their work. I disagree. Just like poets don't have a say about the use of their poems, so should the case be about articles, books, software, composed music etc. > as long as it serves the author, not to be stolen by the publisher IIANM, most copy-rent money goes to publishers, not authors.
Siira 5y ago
10 years should be enough for the authors. The current laws just serve the corporations. Besides, anyone wanting to use copyright for their creations should be mandated to publicly release the source (code, material, etc) of their product after the copyright ends.