3 ms·

Copyright is an artificial right created to assist the "progress of the Science and Useful Arts." Is copyright still doing that, or is it creating cartels, bei

Copyright is an artificial right created to assist the "progress of the Science and Useful Arts." Is copyright still doing that, or is it creating cartels, being used to tell you what you can see and hear, encouraging patenting obvious things for a "landgrab", and supporting companies who don't really add anything to society other than file lawsuits when they think they can get a payout? For some industries that need a lot of upfront R&D and investment and can be well articulated, copyright/intellectual property should be able to be used to protect that investment, but we went very wrong with the current maximalism with copyright terms being 100+ years for songs that might take less than 1 hour to make, and where things like business processes and "X but with a computer" can get patented.

DangitBobby 4y ago
All rights are artifical rights.
- tenebrisalietum 4y ago
  Well--being U.S. centric here--some are placed in a category of "inalienable" e.g. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as described in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. See https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/ https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/. While U.S. copyright is established by the Constitution, does this mean it's in the same category as "inalienable"? Something worthy of more research on my end to be sure.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    It probably wouldn't be considered "inalienable"... I don't think eliminating it is the answer; some form of Copyright should probably exist. Maybe it would be appropriate to have shorter default Copyright durations overall and allow people to apply for longer terms if they think the work is particularly novel. Something doesn't sit right with me when the same legal system supports these two different scenarios: 1) I find land or buy land and occupy it indefinitely as my property with exclusive use rights 2) I create something new using my creativity and have little to no rights over its exclusive or non-exclusive use Why would I not control something I create when practically most other ownership rights are based on a first-come-first-served basis? Clearly if I created something, I came to it first.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Inalienable rights are about as objectively real as Christ's salvation of mankind. Something many people will believe to their grave and won't recant even under serious duress, but nobody can actually prove such things exist as anything more than mere assertions.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      It's very similar to "international law" in that way.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >Inalienable rights are about as objectively real The concept of Inalienable or natural rights stems from the Philosophy of Self Ownership If you deny the existence or objectivity of natural rights, then you also deny the concept of "self" and that humans are self aware actors that objectively own their own bodies. that is a very dangerous thing to deny

DangitBobby 4y ago

All rights are artifical rights.

tenebrisalietum 4y ago
Well--being U.S. centric here--some are placed in a category of "inalienable" e.g. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as described in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. See https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/ https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/. While U.S. copyright is established by the Constitution, does this mean it's in the same category as "inalienable"? Something worthy of more research on my end to be sure.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  It probably wouldn't be considered "inalienable"... I don't think eliminating it is the answer; some form of Copyright should probably exist. Maybe it would be appropriate to have shorter default Copyright durations overall and allow people to apply for longer terms if they think the work is particularly novel. Something doesn't sit right with me when the same legal system supports these two different scenarios: 1) I find land or buy land and occupy it indefinitely as my property with exclusive use rights 2) I create something new using my creativity and have little to no rights over its exclusive or non-exclusive use Why would I not control something I create when practically most other ownership rights are based on a first-come-first-served basis? Clearly if I created something, I came to it first.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Inalienable rights are about as objectively real as Christ's salvation of mankind. Something many people will believe to their grave and won't recant even under serious duress, but nobody can actually prove such things exist as anything more than mere assertions.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    It's very similar to "international law" in that way.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >Inalienable rights are about as objectively real The concept of Inalienable or natural rights stems from the Philosophy of Self Ownership If you deny the existence or objectivity of natural rights, then you also deny the concept of "self" and that humans are self aware actors that objectively own their own bodies. that is a very dangerous thing to deny