3 ms·

Since you work in copyright, you've probably also seen firsthand how overzealous copyright enforcement can destroy businesses that produce excellent content. F

Since you work in copyright, you've probably also seen firsthand how overzealous copyright enforcement can destroy businesses that produce excellent content. Frankly, your bias shows and you might have a case of EverythingLooksLikeANailitis. The copyright industry may be "protecting" jobs in some ways, but it's also destroying jobs in others. It's halting progress in so many cases. You also need to look at who, in practice, is protected by copyright. The grand majority of the money being protected is that of big, rich industries. Even when the Little Guys are protected, it's usually by a bigger company that gets the way bigger cut from it (eg. stock photo and music artists). A world without copyright is a different one. IP lawyers and copyright enforcers might be out of a job, but it doesn't mean it'd be one without music or art. We'd find a different way to make it work, hopefully a way that doesn't drive the next Aaron Swartz to suicide.

SR2Z 5y ago
> Frankly, your bias shows and you might have a case of EverythingLooksLikeANailitis. The copyright industry may be "protecting" jobs in some ways, but it's also destroying jobs in others. It's halting progress in so many cases. No, I have a case of "I'veSeenWhatHappensWhenCopyrightIsIgnoreditis." A blind man could see that copyright needs serious reforms, but it's absurd to pretend like other systems produce the diversity and scale of works that the current one does. > You also need to look at who, in practice, is protected by copyright. Believe it or not, I do every day. It's crazy that your solution to "small creators get ripped off" is "make ripping them off legal." The actual solution is to reduce the cost of enforcing copyright - right now it takes a court case, which obviously is a nonstarter for anyone who isn't making bank off of their copyright. > A world without copyright is a different one. IP lawyers and copyright enforcers might be out of a job, but it doesn't mean it'd be one without music or art. As long as there are humans, there'll be art and music. What there won't be are people who make a living off of it, and we'll rewind to like 300 years ago when the only people who could afford to create art were born rich or willing to find a rich person who'd individually sponsor them. When people have more time to spend on art, they produce better art. I really hope that isn't controversial. > We'd find a different way to make it work, hopefully a way that doesn't drive the next Aaron Swartz to suicide. I'd really rather we didn't use a deeply individual instance of suicide as a political talking point. It's kind of tasteless and you can find plenty of examples of suicide for virtually any problem.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > The actual solution is to reduce the cost of enforcing copyright - right now it takes a court case, which obviously is a nonstarter for anyone who isn't making bank off of their copyright. Making it easier will result in even worse systems than YouTube's insane extralegal "copystrike" process which enables such abuses as police playing copyrighted songs to prevent people from sharing videos of them. The opposite should happen. It should be much harder to enforce, it should most definitely not be automatic, it should cost copyright holders huge amounts of money, it should require them to go to actual court, there should be severe penalties for fraudulent claims. > we'll rewind to like 300 years ago when the only people who could afford to create art were born rich or willing to find a rich person who'd individually sponsor them If we keep going like this we'll rewind about 100 years to the status quo before the invention of computers. We'll have them but they'll be restricted to the point they're equivalent to old mass media. Their potential squandered in the name of keeping old industries alive. Everything the internet was meant to be, destroyed due to the surveillance and control necessary to enforce copyright.
  - SR2Z 5y ago
    > Making it easier will result in even worse systems than YouTube's insane extralegal "copystrike" process which enables such abuses as police playing copyrighted songs to prevent people from sharing videos of them. No, it'll make it easier for watchdogs to fight bullshit like this. A poorly rendered version of "Shake it Off" that just so happens to be played in the background of some police brutality is fair use - but guess where you have to go to claim fair use as a defense? > If we keep going like this we'll rewind about 100 years to the status quo before the invention of computers. We'll have them but they'll be restricted to the point they're equivalent to old mass media. Their potential squandered in the name of keeping old industries alive. Everything the internet was meant to be, destroyed due to the surveillance and control necessary to enforce copyright. People have been saying this for twenty years, and computers now have only become more capable. It was an exaggeration then and it's an exaggeration now.

SR2Z 5y ago

> Frankly, your bias shows and you might have a case of EverythingLooksLikeANailitis. The copyright industry may be "protecting" jobs in some ways, but it's also destroying jobs in others. It's halting progress in so many cases. No, I have a case of "I'veSeenWhatHappensWhenCopyrightIsIgnoreditis." A blind man could see that copyright needs serious reforms, but it's absurd to pretend like other systems produce the diversity and scale of works that the current one does. > You also need to look at who, in practice, is protected by copyright. Believe it or not, I do every day. It's crazy that your solution to "small creators get ripped off" is "make ripping them off legal." The actual solution is to reduce the cost of enforcing copyright - right now it takes a court case, which obviously is a nonstarter for anyone who isn't making bank off of their copyright. > A world without copyright is a different one. IP lawyers and copyright enforcers might be out of a job, but it doesn't mean it'd be one without music or art. As long as there are humans, there'll be art and music. What there won't be are people who make a living off of it, and we'll rewind to like 300 years ago when the only people who could afford to create art were born rich or willing to find a rich person who'd individually sponsor them. When people have more time to spend on art, they produce better art. I really hope that isn't controversial. > We'd find a different way to make it work, hopefully a way that doesn't drive the next Aaron Swartz to suicide. I'd really rather we didn't use a deeply individual instance of suicide as a political talking point. It's kind of tasteless and you can find plenty of examples of suicide for virtually any problem.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> The actual solution is to reduce the cost of enforcing copyright - right now it takes a court case, which obviously is a nonstarter for anyone who isn't making bank off of their copyright. Making it easier will result in even worse systems than YouTube's insane extralegal "copystrike" process which enables such abuses as police playing copyrighted songs to prevent people from sharing videos of them. The opposite should happen. It should be much harder to enforce, it should most definitely not be automatic, it should cost copyright holders huge amounts of money, it should require them to go to actual court, there should be severe penalties for fraudulent claims. > we'll rewind to like 300 years ago when the only people who could afford to create art were born rich or willing to find a rich person who'd individually sponsor them If we keep going like this we'll rewind about 100 years to the status quo before the invention of computers. We'll have them but they'll be restricted to the point they're equivalent to old mass media. Their potential squandered in the name of keeping old industries alive. Everything the internet was meant to be, destroyed due to the surveillance and control necessary to enforce copyright.
- SR2Z 5y ago
  > Making it easier will result in even worse systems than YouTube's insane extralegal "copystrike" process which enables such abuses as police playing copyrighted songs to prevent people from sharing videos of them. No, it'll make it easier for watchdogs to fight bullshit like this. A poorly rendered version of "Shake it Off" that just so happens to be played in the background of some police brutality is fair use - but guess where you have to go to claim fair use as a defense? > If we keep going like this we'll rewind about 100 years to the status quo before the invention of computers. We'll have them but they'll be restricted to the point they're equivalent to old mass media. Their potential squandered in the name of keeping old industries alive. Everything the internet was meant to be, destroyed due to the surveillance and control necessary to enforce copyright. People have been saying this for twenty years, and computers now have only become more capable. It was an exaggeration then and it's an exaggeration now.