5 ms·

> Keep working if you want to keep making money. FWIW, this is literally what copyright law is saying. Instead of copying someone else, seeking rent for someth

by dahart 4y ago

> Keep working if you want to keep making money. FWIW, this is literally what copyright law is saying. Instead of copying someone else, seeking rent for something you didn’t invest in, taking away from someone else’s investment, go make your own stuff to copy & distribute & sell.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
Sure, as long as the copyright term is valid. After that, the works are in the public domain where there are no restrictions to what we can do with our shared culture. Why do you conveniently forget that the law also talks about public domain? The same public domain that contained works that artists like Walt Disney drew from in order to strike it rich, only to subsequently lobby the government to rob us of the same rights he enjoyed time and time again? These functionally infinite copyright terms rob us of our rights and turns copyright infringement into civil disobedience.
- dahart 4y ago
  > as long as the copyright term is valid. No, the whole idea behind copyrights of any term length is to provide and incentive for people to make something new instead of copy someone else’s work. The retort you used, “Keep working if you want to keep making money” applies to people who seek to copy or remix work as much as it applies to people who seek to protect their work from copies or remixes. I really would love to hear a compelling argument that convinces me, I want a stronger argument for a reduction in term length (and I do think it should be shortened), but this hyperbole isn’t doing it. You’re complaining about rent-seeking, but failing to understand that this isn’t an argument over whether there will be rent-seeking or not. This is an argument about who gets to seek rent, the person who did the creative work, or someone else who ‘borrowed’ the work without adding value. Personally, I’d certainly rather default to giving creators money over copiers, wouldn’t you? Copyright was established to avoid the second kind of rent-seeking, which has historically been a real economic drain.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > You’re complaining about rent-seeking, but failing to understand that this isn’t an argument over whether there will be rent-seeking or not. It absolutely is. Copyright in its current state is the epitome of rent seeking and its ever expanding lengths are the perfect example of regulatory capture. Copyright is people and corporations collecting rent from works they made over half a century ago and using the profits to lobby governments into extending their monopolies even further. At some point it stops being about fair incentivization of creators and it became about rent seeking. I really have no idea what's controversial or "hyperbolic" about this statement. > Personally, I’d certainly rather default to giving creators money over copiers, wouldn’t you? For five to ten years, sure. After that much time, works belong in the public domain.
    - dahart 4y ago
      > It absolutely is [rent-seeking]. I agree, and I haven’t argued against that anywhere in this thread. You seem to have missed my point entirely. The part you’re not addressing is that copying others’ work is also rent-seeking, it’s trying to take value for yourself that someone else created. > For five to ten years So you’re okay with rent seeking for authors for a certain period of time. Good, we agree there. Now, how did you come up with five to ten years? What justifies that term? Does it work for all creators? How do you know?
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        > It absolutely is [rent-seeking]. That's not what I meant. What I wanted to say is that it absolutely is an "argument over whether there will be rent-seeking or not". Copyrights, truly time limited, are a lot of things but not rent seeking. Rent seeking is when you just collect rent from existing successful properties without having to create new works. If the copyright terms are short and limited, creators have no choice but to create new stuff or lose their revenue. > So you’re okay with rent seeking for authors for a certain period of time. I'm not okay with any rent seeking at all. I simply don't think it is rent seeking if the duration is short enough.

by dahart 4y ago

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Sure, as long as the copyright term is valid. After that, the works are in the public domain where there are no restrictions to what we can do with our shared culture. Why do you conveniently forget that the law also talks about public domain? The same public domain that contained works that artists like Walt Disney drew from in order to strike it rich, only to subsequently lobby the government to rob us of the same rights he enjoyed time and time again? These functionally infinite copyright terms rob us of our rights and turns copyright infringement into civil disobedience.

dahart 4y ago
> as long as the copyright term is valid. No, the whole idea behind copyrights of any term length is to provide and incentive for people to make something new instead of copy someone else’s work. The retort you used, “Keep working if you want to keep making money” applies to people who seek to copy or remix work as much as it applies to people who seek to protect their work from copies or remixes. I really would love to hear a compelling argument that convinces me, I want a stronger argument for a reduction in term length (and I do think it should be shortened), but this hyperbole isn’t doing it. You’re complaining about rent-seeking, but failing to understand that this isn’t an argument over whether there will be rent-seeking or not. This is an argument about who gets to seek rent, the person who did the creative work, or someone else who ‘borrowed’ the work without adding value. Personally, I’d certainly rather default to giving creators money over copiers, wouldn’t you? Copyright was established to avoid the second kind of rent-seeking, which has historically been a real economic drain.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > You’re complaining about rent-seeking, but failing to understand that this isn’t an argument over whether there will be rent-seeking or not. It absolutely is. Copyright in its current state is the epitome of rent seeking and its ever expanding lengths are the perfect example of regulatory capture. Copyright is people and corporations collecting rent from works they made over half a century ago and using the profits to lobby governments into extending their monopolies even further. At some point it stops being about fair incentivization of creators and it became about rent seeking. I really have no idea what's controversial or "hyperbolic" about this statement. > Personally, I’d certainly rather default to giving creators money over copiers, wouldn’t you? For five to ten years, sure. After that much time, works belong in the public domain.
  - dahart 4y ago
    > It absolutely is [rent-seeking]. I agree, and I haven’t argued against that anywhere in this thread. You seem to have missed my point entirely. The part you’re not addressing is that copying others’ work is also rent-seeking, it’s trying to take value for yourself that someone else created. > For five to ten years So you’re okay with rent seeking for authors for a certain period of time. Good, we agree there. Now, how did you come up with five to ten years? What justifies that term? Does it work for all creators? How do you know?
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      > It absolutely is [rent-seeking]. That's not what I meant. What I wanted to say is that it absolutely is an "argument over whether there will be rent-seeking or not". Copyrights, truly time limited, are a lot of things but not rent seeking. Rent seeking is when you just collect rent from existing successful properties without having to create new works. If the copyright terms are short and limited, creators have no choice but to create new stuff or lose their revenue. > So you’re okay with rent seeking for authors for a certain period of time. I'm not okay with any rent seeking at all. I simply don't think it is rent seeking if the duration is short enough.