3 ms·
There is a difference between [advocating against bad laws that promote abuse or favor interests or hamper innovation] and [advocating for no copyright laws wha
by czhu12 4y ago
There is a difference between [advocating against bad laws that promote abuse or favor interests or hamper innovation] and [advocating for no copyright laws whatsoever]. I think we're somewhat talking past each other here.
I have no idea what a good copyright law is, but assuming that one can be crafted, I think it would be totally reasonable for said law to be implemented.
From first principles, it still seems like a publisher should have a reasonable right to protect their content from theft.
- btdmaster 4y agoSide note: https://questioncopyright.org/minute-memes-copying-is-not-theft https://questioncopyright.org/minute-memes-copying-is-not-th...
- pnt12 4y agoWell, you're asking to ignore one side of the issue when talking about other, but clearly one affects the other. Companies and governments push anti consumer laws to keep copyright away from the public domain forever. Public resources are spent to protect the interests of this enterprises. Companies engage in anti consumer practices such as exclusives and hard to cancel services. This makes it impossible to have sympathy for the companies.
- czhu12 4y agoI'd argue that public resources are used all the time to defend the rights of companies. If a car gets stolen for a Toyota dealership, significant public resources are deployed to recover and prosecute. The alternative is one in which private companies are expected to hire private security, and private detectives and a private militia to defend their products. If I remember correctly, this is indeed what the East India Trading Company did, before it was determined that it was in the public interest to defend private companies.