6 ms·

Copyright was originally intended to protect the creators of a work. Over many years it has now mostly become a tool for large companies to accumulate rights (

by hooby 4y ago

Copyright was originally intended to protect the creators of a work. Over many years it has now mostly become a tool for large companies to accumulate rights (on works they didn't create themselves) and monetize them. Maybe a reform is needed, to find a way back to the original purpose.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Copyright was originally intended to protect the creators of a work. No, it wasn’t. Copyright was originally intended to protect the publishers of a work. It was later transformed to nominally focus on the creators, but even this was lobbied for by publishers in their own self-interest after the old law directly protecting them was allowed to lapse, and because it still had the same net effect since realizing value meant licensing to a publisher in most practical cases, so the publishers were still major beneficiaries. And, of course, US copyrights under the Constitution do not exist for the purpose of protecting creators, instead a private benefit for creators is a mechanism but the purpose is expressly to “promote the progress of science of useful arts”.
- 6stringmerc 4y ago
  Wrong! At the point of creation something is granted copyright. Publishers in literature and music are right assholes who’ve created this system. Little middle men rent seeking. It does need reform but it is for the creators that’s why it’s tied to the creator and not date of publication. Fix your perspective buckaroo
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It does need reform but it is for the creators No, under the US Constitution it is for a specified public benefit as its purpose, the private benefit is a mechanism to achieve that. Under the Statute of Anne, it was nominally for creators (but this was lobbied for by printers after the expiration of earlier laws, and they were the prime beneficiaries in practice.) The earlier laws were explicitly for printers.
    - j-bos 4y ago
      This great to know, though I'm having trouble referencing the earlier laws, can you post a link please?
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      > No, under the US Constitution it is for a specified public benefit as its purpose, the private benefit is a mechanism to achieve that. Well, that's false. The actual US Constitution in Article I Section 8 Clause 8 says, "[The Congress shall have power] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." That could, possibly one-day provide public benefits, but it doesn't have to. If public benefits happen, they are side-effects. The purpose is for authors and inventors to have exclusive rights in their writings and discoveries. They are never required to publish or advance anything for the public. This is a private protection not a public benefit for a "specific purpose".
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > That could, possibly one-day provide public benefits, but it doesn't have to The text you quote is explicit: the public benefit—promotion of science and useful arts—is the purpose. Providing benefits to creators is a mechanism for acheiving that purpose, not the purpose itself. That’s what I said before, and it remains true, and you’ve just quoted the bit of the Constitution that says it while claiming it is false.
        6stringmerc 4y ago
        Chicken-egg it exists and is so far from written intention by coincidentally both artists and publishers to be a mutant, it’s just such a mess.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        You are assuming that promoting the progress of science and useful arts is for the public benefit, but it can easily happen in private. That is why public benefits are not primary. That is what I pointed out to you in my earlier post, but you continue to make that same flawed assumption.
- hooby 4y ago
  > Copyright was originally intended to protect the publishers of a work. You are talking about modern US copyright law. But copyright laws (laws around copy) predate the existence of publishers and the declaration of independence of the United States by over a 1000 years.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > You are talking about modern US copyright law. No, I’m talking mostly about British copyright law prior to the nominal prioritization of creators in the Statute of Anne (1710). (Techhically, it was focussed on printers rather than publishers, but the separation of function of those is a more modern arrangement.) You can tell the part you target isn't about modern US copyright law because I later in the same post distinguish all US copyright law under the Constitution (which includes modern US copyright law) from it.

by hooby 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Copyright was originally intended to protect the creators of a work. No, it wasn’t. Copyright was originally intended to protect the publishers of a work. It was later transformed to nominally focus on the creators, but even this was lobbied for by publishers in their own self-interest after the old law directly protecting them was allowed to lapse, and because it still had the same net effect since realizing value meant licensing to a publisher in most practical cases, so the publishers were still major beneficiaries. And, of course, US copyrights under the Constitution do not exist for the purpose of protecting creators, instead a private benefit for creators is a mechanism but the purpose is expressly to “promote the progress of science of useful arts”.

6stringmerc 4y ago
Wrong! At the point of creation something is granted copyright. Publishers in literature and music are right assholes who’ve created this system. Little middle men rent seeking. It does need reform but it is for the creators that’s why it’s tied to the creator and not date of publication. Fix your perspective buckaroo
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It does need reform but it is for the creators No, under the US Constitution it is for a specified public benefit as its purpose, the private benefit is a mechanism to achieve that. Under the Statute of Anne, it was nominally for creators (but this was lobbied for by printers after the expiration of earlier laws, and they were the prime beneficiaries in practice.) The earlier laws were explicitly for printers.
  - j-bos 4y ago
    This great to know, though I'm having trouble referencing the earlier laws, can you post a link please?
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    > No, under the US Constitution it is for a specified public benefit as its purpose, the private benefit is a mechanism to achieve that. Well, that's false. The actual US Constitution in Article I Section 8 Clause 8 says, "[The Congress shall have power] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." That could, possibly one-day provide public benefits, but it doesn't have to. If public benefits happen, they are side-effects. The purpose is for authors and inventors to have exclusive rights in their writings and discoveries. They are never required to publish or advance anything for the public. This is a private protection not a public benefit for a "specific purpose".
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > That could, possibly one-day provide public benefits, but it doesn't have to The text you quote is explicit: the public benefit—promotion of science and useful arts—is the purpose. Providing benefits to creators is a mechanism for acheiving that purpose, not the purpose itself. That’s what I said before, and it remains true, and you’ve just quoted the bit of the Constitution that says it while claiming it is false.
      - 6stringmerc 4y ago
        Chicken-egg it exists and is so far from written intention by coincidentally both artists and publishers to be a mutant, it’s just such a mess.
      - IncRnd 4y ago
        You are assuming that promoting the progress of science and useful arts is for the public benefit, but it can easily happen in private. That is why public benefits are not primary. That is what I pointed out to you in my earlier post, but you continue to make that same flawed assumption.
hooby 4y ago
> Copyright was originally intended to protect the publishers of a work. You are talking about modern US copyright law. But copyright laws (laws around copy) predate the existence of publishers and the declaration of independence of the United States by over a 1000 years.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > You are talking about modern US copyright law. No, I’m talking mostly about British copyright law prior to the nominal prioritization of creators in the Statute of Anne (1710). (Techhically, it was focussed on printers rather than publishers, but the separation of function of those is a more modern arrangement.) You can tell the part you target isn't about modern US copyright law because I later in the same post distinguish all US copyright law under the Constitution (which includes modern US copyright law) from it.