3 ms·

I am talking about the 1st/2nd order effects of the work being created, which I feel like has to be the assumption if we’re going to talk about making the world

by dahart 5y ago

I am talking about the 1st/2nd order effects of the work being created, which I feel like has to be the assumption if we’re going to talk about making the world a better place. Assuming the work is already created and starting from the question of piracy kind-of undermines the idea of making the world a better place, doesn’t it? I mentioned somewhere else, but Copyright Law already specifically rejects the claim that copying without permission is not hurting the creator. That claim doesn’t hold water when the pirate is enjoying the value of the work, and is ignoring the costs of it’s creation including time. Piracy advocates need to address the history and philosophy of copyright that’s already been debated and decided if the argument is to be taken seriously. Short of piracy, I’m still left wondering how to decide copyright terms.

Beldin 5y ago
I'll give it a go: It's a bit like a startup. That is: creating the thing isn't the only part - getting people to want it, i.e., finding a market for your product, is intrinsical. Case in point: Van Gogh. He only became greatly appreciated after his death. What does that mean for copyright? In this line of reasoning, copyright during life of the creator is reasonable. A work may become a cultural touchstone for ever (Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, Bach/Mozart/Beethoven), for one or two generations (Elvis Presley/Cliff Richards[1]), or maybe it becomes simply widely known without being considered an indispensable part of culture (Venga Boys - Boom Boom Boom). During life of the creator, the creator's efforts should be protected and she/he should be allowed time to get her/his creation ingrained in general consciousness. Post-life, the heirs could be allowed some time to reap what was sown - e.g. 10 years, extendible once for 10 years for payment. As the OP, I'm not saying this is my view on copyright. I am wondering why society should think it owns something I created. "Because others benefit" is insufficient in my opinion: if you're posting on HN, you're in the wealthy half of the world population. Others would benefit if society took half of what you own and distributed its value to those significantly less well off. I'm in favour of the concept of ownership myself, but I don't see why creative works should be exempt from that. [1] at one point in time, there was an Elvis vs. Cliff vibe. Possibly strength depending on where you lived (more apparent for UK/EU folks?).
- ajurna 5y ago
  i think the argument goes that all human culture is remixed from human culture. if you write a book it's safe to say you have borrowed from other works of culture. you might have put a new spin on it but that isn't to say you have created something wholly new. how could you possibly claim to have crated a new artistic work uninfluenced by previously created artistic works? thus how much of this work do you truly own? when you look at the Disney animation classic's back catalogue you see an awful lot of work from the commons. does this not display the value of having these works in the commons?

by dahart 5y ago

Beldin 5y ago

I'll give it a go: It's a bit like a startup. That is: creating the thing isn't the only part - getting people to want it, i.e., finding a market for your product, is intrinsical. Case in point: Van Gogh. He only became greatly appreciated after his death. What does that mean for copyright? In this line of reasoning, copyright during life of the creator is reasonable. A work may become a cultural touchstone for ever (Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, Bach/Mozart/Beethoven), for one or two generations (Elvis Presley/Cliff Richards[1]), or maybe it becomes simply widely known without being considered an indispensable part of culture (Venga Boys - Boom Boom Boom). During life of the creator, the creator's efforts should be protected and she/he should be allowed time to get her/his creation ingrained in general consciousness. Post-life, the heirs could be allowed some time to reap what was sown - e.g. 10 years, extendible once for 10 years for payment. As the OP, I'm not saying this is my view on copyright. I am wondering why society should think it owns something I created. "Because others benefit" is insufficient in my opinion: if you're posting on HN, you're in the wealthy half of the world population. Others would benefit if society took half of what you own and distributed its value to those significantly less well off. I'm in favour of the concept of ownership myself, but I don't see why creative works should be exempt from that. [1] at one point in time, there was an Elvis vs. Cliff vibe. Possibly strength depending on where you lived (more apparent for UK/EU folks?).

ajurna 5y ago
i think the argument goes that all human culture is remixed from human culture. if you write a book it's safe to say you have borrowed from other works of culture. you might have put a new spin on it but that isn't to say you have created something wholly new. how could you possibly claim to have crated a new artistic work uninfluenced by previously created artistic works? thus how much of this work do you truly own? when you look at the Disney animation classic's back catalogue you see an awful lot of work from the commons. does this not display the value of having these works in the commons?