4 ms·

> It either makes more money than it cost or it doesn’t. You moved your own goal post, you were talking about when it makes it’s money, not whether. Your claim

by dahart 4y ago

> It either makes more money than it cost or it doesn’t. You moved your own goal post, you were talking about when it makes it’s money, not whether. Your claim was that it reaches that point in a few weeks, which is 1) not generally true, and 2) irrelevant to most creative works. Copyrights aren’t only serving movies, they’re serving artists and musicians and magazines and websites and many other industries too. The amount of time it takes for a movie to recoup it’s costs has no bearing on what copyright terms should be. > this trillion dollar copyright industry has already coopted this so called “system” There’s no question terms are a bit too long and that big business is profiting, there’s no question whether things are messed up. They are, I’m not arguing with you there. I’m just not sure that tossing out the baby with the bath water and raging against the machine is going to be fruitful. Copyrights do protect many independent artists somewhat, despite your anecdote.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
> Copyrights aren’t only serving movies, they’re serving artists and musicians and magazines and websites and many other industries too. Which is why I wrote "give them like five years of protection" instead of a few months. That ought to be more than enough for most if not all to make their money back and then some. Maybe 10 years at the absolute most. Certainly not this lifetime plus 70 years insanity. > there’s no question whether things are messed up. They are, I’m not arguing with you there. I'm happy you agree. > I’m just not sure that tossing out the baby with the bath water and raging against the machine is going to be fruitful. I'm sorry, it's just so hard for me to watch the copyright industry just destroy the computers I love so much because they harm their rent seeking. Every year it's some new DRM bullshit with new ways to usurp control of my computer for their own ends. They have such immense lobbying power they made it illegal to break into and take control of my own system. It just feels so hopeless. I really don't know what else to do at this point.
- dahart 4y ago
  > five years […] That ought to be more than enough for most Why? You have not established this. The only example you gave is not valid for most content. Books and art and music frequently make the bulk of their return more than 5 or 10 years later. Why “most” and not all? Have you researched how many people make money on creative output? Personally I’m not very convinced by armchair opinions, this needs more careful reasoning. What if draconian copyright is today right now having the intended effect of encouraging people to make new work and not remix existing content? What you’re complaining about is the inability to legally copy current work, while there is no restriction on making new things (and you get legal protection if you do!) Maybe we should talk about what specific things you want to copy that you feel should be legal?
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > Maybe we should talk about what specific things you want to copy that you feel should be legal? Anything older than 5-10 years should be in the public domain. That means music, movies, games, books, literally anything copyrighted. Nintendo should not be selling the same NES Mario game to people for the 100th time. They've already made their money like a billion times over. Let it go. This is honestly shameful.
    - dahart 4y ago
      Why? If you’re okay with 5 years of copyright, then give reasons and evidence why 5 years is the appropriate term. This has been litigated for centuries, so I cannot take your opinion as holding any value without at least some reasoning. You gave only one reason so far having to do with movies, which isn’t relevant to copyright law in general, and you have not yet defended your claim that copyright ought to end once you’ve recouped your costs (as opposed to having the opportunity to make a return.) An invalid reason IMO to shorten copyright is to cite companies that have made profits, small or large. It does not matter if Nintendo has made their money. (And you’re dragging up side-baggage by implying that all their Mario games are exactly the same.) Copyright terms need to be designed for all artists and authors who are not Nintendo, so your anger at Nintendo’s profits are clouding the criteria for designing copyright limits.
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        > If you’re okay with 5 years of copyright I'm not okay with any amount of time. I think copyright should be abolished straight up. Five or ten years is just a length of time that I believe would make copyright tolerable enough not to turn copyright infringement into civil disobedience. > you have not yet defended your claim that copyright ought to end once you’ve recouped your costs (as opposed to having the opportunity to make a return.) I never claimed that to begin with. I said 5 years is more than enough to make your money back and then some. If your creation is successful, you're gonna sell enough copies to turn a profit and enjoy a generous protection period. If not, it's a failure and that's fine too. > An invalid reason IMO to shorten copyright is to cite companies that have made profits, small or large. Why? The purpose was to incentivize creation. They made profit. Therefore they were properly incentivized. Nothing invalid about it. The whole point is they should not get these incentives forever. They should be time-limited. Truly time-limited, not this lifetime+70 bullshit. > It does not matter if Nintendo has made their money. It absolutely does. The fact they made money means you cannot claim they were not properly incentivized. > you’re dragging up side-baggage by implying that all their Mario games are exactly the same Nintendo sells people the exact same Mario ROMs from the 80s every console generation. Not just Mario either, pretty much every single franchise of theirs. Not just Nintendo either, pretty much every game company that's been around that long. Not just the games industry either, pretty much the entire entertainment industry does this. Obviously if they make new content it's a new copyright but it's been half a century already and there's no reason for works created that far back to not be in the public domain. > so your anger at Nintendo’s profits are clouding the criteria for designing copyright limits I don't care about their profits. I care about the fact their works from 40+ years ago are still protected.

by dahart 4y ago

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> Copyrights aren’t only serving movies, they’re serving artists and musicians and magazines and websites and many other industries too. Which is why I wrote "give them like five years of protection" instead of a few months. That ought to be more than enough for most if not all to make their money back and then some. Maybe 10 years at the absolute most. Certainly not this lifetime plus 70 years insanity. > there’s no question whether things are messed up. They are, I’m not arguing with you there. I'm happy you agree. > I’m just not sure that tossing out the baby with the bath water and raging against the machine is going to be fruitful. I'm sorry, it's just so hard for me to watch the copyright industry just destroy the computers I love so much because they harm their rent seeking. Every year it's some new DRM bullshit with new ways to usurp control of my computer for their own ends. They have such immense lobbying power they made it illegal to break into and take control of my own system. It just feels so hopeless. I really don't know what else to do at this point.

dahart 4y ago
> five years […] That ought to be more than enough for most Why? You have not established this. The only example you gave is not valid for most content. Books and art and music frequently make the bulk of their return more than 5 or 10 years later. Why “most” and not all? Have you researched how many people make money on creative output? Personally I’m not very convinced by armchair opinions, this needs more careful reasoning. What if draconian copyright is today right now having the intended effect of encouraging people to make new work and not remix existing content? What you’re complaining about is the inability to legally copy current work, while there is no restriction on making new things (and you get legal protection if you do!) Maybe we should talk about what specific things you want to copy that you feel should be legal?
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > Maybe we should talk about what specific things you want to copy that you feel should be legal? Anything older than 5-10 years should be in the public domain. That means music, movies, games, books, literally anything copyrighted. Nintendo should not be selling the same NES Mario game to people for the 100th time. They've already made their money like a billion times over. Let it go. This is honestly shameful.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Why? If you’re okay with 5 years of copyright, then give reasons and evidence why 5 years is the appropriate term. This has been litigated for centuries, so I cannot take your opinion as holding any value without at least some reasoning. You gave only one reason so far having to do with movies, which isn’t relevant to copyright law in general, and you have not yet defended your claim that copyright ought to end once you’ve recouped your costs (as opposed to having the opportunity to make a return.) An invalid reason IMO to shorten copyright is to cite companies that have made profits, small or large. It does not matter if Nintendo has made their money. (And you’re dragging up side-baggage by implying that all their Mario games are exactly the same.) Copyright terms need to be designed for all artists and authors who are not Nintendo, so your anger at Nintendo’s profits are clouding the criteria for designing copyright limits.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      > If you’re okay with 5 years of copyright I'm not okay with any amount of time. I think copyright should be abolished straight up. Five or ten years is just a length of time that I believe would make copyright tolerable enough not to turn copyright infringement into civil disobedience. > you have not yet defended your claim that copyright ought to end once you’ve recouped your costs (as opposed to having the opportunity to make a return.) I never claimed that to begin with. I said 5 years is more than enough to make your money back and then some. If your creation is successful, you're gonna sell enough copies to turn a profit and enjoy a generous protection period. If not, it's a failure and that's fine too. > An invalid reason IMO to shorten copyright is to cite companies that have made profits, small or large. Why? The purpose was to incentivize creation. They made profit. Therefore they were properly incentivized. Nothing invalid about it. The whole point is they should not get these incentives forever. They should be time-limited. Truly time-limited, not this lifetime+70 bullshit. > It does not matter if Nintendo has made their money. It absolutely does. The fact they made money means you cannot claim they were not properly incentivized. > you’re dragging up side-baggage by implying that all their Mario games are exactly the same Nintendo sells people the exact same Mario ROMs from the 80s every console generation. Not just Mario either, pretty much every single franchise of theirs. Not just Nintendo either, pretty much every game company that's been around that long. Not just the games industry either, pretty much the entire entertainment industry does this. Obviously if they make new content it's a new copyright but it's been half a century already and there's no reason for works created that far back to not be in the public domain. > so your anger at Nintendo’s profits are clouding the criteria for designing copyright limits I don't care about their profits. I care about the fact their works from 40+ years ago are still protected.