5 ms·

> Sometimes artists don’t enjoy success for decades, and then it happens long after their most influential work. I know there are notable examples of this, but

by vlunkr 5y ago

> Sometimes artists don’t enjoy success for decades, and then it happens long after their most influential work. I know there are notable examples of this, but they are notable because it's incredibly rare.

dahart 5y ago
No it’s not. It frequently takes a long time for something unknown to get popular. There are thousands upon thousands of albums and artworks and books that didn’t get popular until a decade or two after they were made. Another example you might not be thinking of is software startups take 10 years to get going all the time, and their entire codebase is protected by copyright. That said, I’m still not hearing a particularly compelling reason why copyrights should revert. Regardless of how long it takes for something to get popular, why should your protections expire such that it becomes legal for me to wholesale copy something you made, and turn around and sell it as if it were mine?
- zuminator 5y ago
  You're talking about inventors laboring a decade or two in obscurity. Not 95 years. By that time the money's been rolling in for three-quarters of a century, perhaps to the grandchildren, never having worked a day in their lives while others toil away for their benefit, simply because of a distant accident of birth. That's the cost of generational wealth. It persists because, by the rules of the money game, the current generation of workers is enslaved by the debt of wealth created in the past. Having said that, I do agree it's unrealistic to assume that that truly democratic institutions would abolish long copyrights. I think that the majority of people who are invested in this issue imagine that they are just one bestselling book away, one hit song away, one TikTok meme away, from being wealthy creators. The idea that someone else might re-upload and unfairly profit from their own habanero sauce snorting video, that they worked so hard to perfect, is anathema to them.
  - dahart 5y ago
    I have mentioned above I’m in favor of shortening copyrights. I have my reasons, but I’m also asking to hear more compelling and clearly stated reasons than “I want free stuff” or “it’d be better for everyone if things were free” or “it should be free because big media is already rich”. > I think that the majority of people who are invested in this issue imagine that they are just one bestselling book away […] The idea that someone else might re-upload and unfairly profit from their own habanero sauce snorting video, that they worked so hard to perfect, is anathema to them. I wouldn’t be quite so glib. The history of copyright, and the state of the debate today, is far more interesting than your assumptions here. First of all, the driving force behind updates to the copyright law in recent years is big business, not TikTok memers. Second, the economic sectors of Information (based on copyright protected code), and of Media and Entertainment (based on copyright protected artwork), are larger than utilities, construction, education, and corporate management combined, for example. This is a large and core part to our economy and not something that is primarily being discussed because of a few artists with little more than hopes and dollar signs in their eyes.
    - vlunkr 5y ago
      > it’d be better for everyone if things were free This is compelling for me. Not so I can have free stuff, but because it's beneficial to society to have access to these things without worrying that it's going to vanish. Think about kids in school, there's tons of literature and plays that they can use for free already, but wouldn't it be nice if they could read something more modern that would maybe get them more engaged? Another argument I hear sometimes is that when you release something to the public, doesn't that in some sense belong to everyone? The original Star Wars trilogy is a significant piece of modern culture, and it hasn't been released in it's original version since 2006. That really doesn't seem right. I'm not necessarily saying it should be public domain right now, but it would be nice to watch it with my grandkids without apologizing for the terrible scenes they added in the 90s.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > but I’m also asking to hear more compelling and clearly stated reasons than [...] “it’d be better for everyone if things were free” How could anything be a better reason than that?
- jackothy 5y ago
  It's not stealing if it's an idea, if it's just a concept. I am not taking your hard drives, I am not ripping you brain cells out of your brain. I am simply no longer allowing you to restrict my usage of something that you have freely given to me, whether that be a DVD you sold me, or my memory of something you said. And it's not like I will take all your business just like that. People will still buy from you by default. If people buy from me instead, that means I am providing some value that you are not providing. And that is good for society.
  - dahart 5y ago
    The false idea that you can’t steal copies has already been dealt with multiple times in this comment thread, and it’s addressed directly and rejected by our Copyright law. A compelling argument needs to be able to accept the fact that taking copies is harmful and demonstrate that the good outweighs the harm. > it’s not like I will take all your business just like that. Yes it is, that is exactly what happens when copyrights expire, and the debate we’re having is precisely over whether it should be legal to take all of the business because you’re better at marketing than the original creator. If you don’t do it, someone else will, more so now with the internet than ever before. > People will still buy from you by default That’s an assumption that doesn’t stand up to a reality check, it’s rare for media that expires copyright and has a revenue stream to continue providing that same revenue in the face of competition. This is exactly why Disney has asked for extensions. > If people buy from me instead, that means I am providing some value that you are not providing. And that is good for society. Not automatically it’s not. The easiest “value” to provide is to steal something you didn’t make, and offer it for less money than the original because you don’t have anything to recoup. That’s not good for society, and it’s why copyrights exist in the first place.
    - jackothy 5y ago
      "The false idea that you can’t steal copies" alright semantics, semantics. Breach of copyright clearly has negative consequences for the copyright holder. Whether that is because the copyright holder is then being stripped of control, or because the copyright holder simply is no longer allowed to strip others of their control, is up for debate. I hold that the latter is more true. Copyright is a service that is provided so that you can continue to remotely exert control over something that is no longer in your possession. The fact that you are allowed to control what I do with the thoughts in my brain, and control what I do with what I have legally bought from you, is a temporary favor to incite you to create cool stuff. And yes, simply selling something at a lower cost/it being free provides value to the people. People will gain access to the media in the most convenient way possible, and spending as little of their money as possible. That's value. Don't forget, due to the competition it will be a race to the bottom in terms of price. Nobody is going to get rich just off of your creation. The major benefactors will be the buyers, not the sellers.

by vlunkr 5y ago

dahart 5y ago

No it’s not. It frequently takes a long time for something unknown to get popular. There are thousands upon thousands of albums and artworks and books that didn’t get popular until a decade or two after they were made. Another example you might not be thinking of is software startups take 10 years to get going all the time, and their entire codebase is protected by copyright. That said, I’m still not hearing a particularly compelling reason why copyrights should revert. Regardless of how long it takes for something to get popular, why should your protections expire such that it becomes legal for me to wholesale copy something you made, and turn around and sell it as if it were mine?

zuminator 5y ago
You're talking about inventors laboring a decade or two in obscurity. Not 95 years. By that time the money's been rolling in for three-quarters of a century, perhaps to the grandchildren, never having worked a day in their lives while others toil away for their benefit, simply because of a distant accident of birth. That's the cost of generational wealth. It persists because, by the rules of the money game, the current generation of workers is enslaved by the debt of wealth created in the past. Having said that, I do agree it's unrealistic to assume that that truly democratic institutions would abolish long copyrights. I think that the majority of people who are invested in this issue imagine that they are just one bestselling book away, one hit song away, one TikTok meme away, from being wealthy creators. The idea that someone else might re-upload and unfairly profit from their own habanero sauce snorting video, that they worked so hard to perfect, is anathema to them.
- dahart 5y ago
  I have mentioned above I’m in favor of shortening copyrights. I have my reasons, but I’m also asking to hear more compelling and clearly stated reasons than “I want free stuff” or “it’d be better for everyone if things were free” or “it should be free because big media is already rich”. > I think that the majority of people who are invested in this issue imagine that they are just one bestselling book away […] The idea that someone else might re-upload and unfairly profit from their own habanero sauce snorting video, that they worked so hard to perfect, is anathema to them. I wouldn’t be quite so glib. The history of copyright, and the state of the debate today, is far more interesting than your assumptions here. First of all, the driving force behind updates to the copyright law in recent years is big business, not TikTok memers. Second, the economic sectors of Information (based on copyright protected code), and of Media and Entertainment (based on copyright protected artwork), are larger than utilities, construction, education, and corporate management combined, for example. This is a large and core part to our economy and not something that is primarily being discussed because of a few artists with little more than hopes and dollar signs in their eyes.
  - vlunkr 5y ago
    > it’d be better for everyone if things were free This is compelling for me. Not so I can have free stuff, but because it's beneficial to society to have access to these things without worrying that it's going to vanish. Think about kids in school, there's tons of literature and plays that they can use for free already, but wouldn't it be nice if they could read something more modern that would maybe get them more engaged? Another argument I hear sometimes is that when you release something to the public, doesn't that in some sense belong to everyone? The original Star Wars trilogy is a significant piece of modern culture, and it hasn't been released in it's original version since 2006. That really doesn't seem right. I'm not necessarily saying it should be public domain right now, but it would be nice to watch it with my grandkids without apologizing for the terrible scenes they added in the 90s.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > but I’m also asking to hear more compelling and clearly stated reasons than [...] “it’d be better for everyone if things were free” How could anything be a better reason than that?
jackothy 5y ago
It's not stealing if it's an idea, if it's just a concept. I am not taking your hard drives, I am not ripping you brain cells out of your brain. I am simply no longer allowing you to restrict my usage of something that you have freely given to me, whether that be a DVD you sold me, or my memory of something you said. And it's not like I will take all your business just like that. People will still buy from you by default. If people buy from me instead, that means I am providing some value that you are not providing. And that is good for society.
- dahart 5y ago
  The false idea that you can’t steal copies has already been dealt with multiple times in this comment thread, and it’s addressed directly and rejected by our Copyright law. A compelling argument needs to be able to accept the fact that taking copies is harmful and demonstrate that the good outweighs the harm. > it’s not like I will take all your business just like that. Yes it is, that is exactly what happens when copyrights expire, and the debate we’re having is precisely over whether it should be legal to take all of the business because you’re better at marketing than the original creator. If you don’t do it, someone else will, more so now with the internet than ever before. > People will still buy from you by default That’s an assumption that doesn’t stand up to a reality check, it’s rare for media that expires copyright and has a revenue stream to continue providing that same revenue in the face of competition. This is exactly why Disney has asked for extensions. > If people buy from me instead, that means I am providing some value that you are not providing. And that is good for society. Not automatically it’s not. The easiest “value” to provide is to steal something you didn’t make, and offer it for less money than the original because you don’t have anything to recoup. That’s not good for society, and it’s why copyrights exist in the first place.
  - jackothy 5y ago
    "The false idea that you can’t steal copies" alright semantics, semantics. Breach of copyright clearly has negative consequences for the copyright holder. Whether that is because the copyright holder is then being stripped of control, or because the copyright holder simply is no longer allowed to strip others of their control, is up for debate. I hold that the latter is more true. Copyright is a service that is provided so that you can continue to remotely exert control over something that is no longer in your possession. The fact that you are allowed to control what I do with the thoughts in my brain, and control what I do with what I have legally bought from you, is a temporary favor to incite you to create cool stuff. And yes, simply selling something at a lower cost/it being free provides value to the people. People will gain access to the media in the most convenient way possible, and spending as little of their money as possible. That's value. Don't forget, due to the competition it will be a race to the bottom in terms of price. Nobody is going to get rich just off of your creation. The major benefactors will be the buyers, not the sellers.