5 ms·

Why any copyright at all? Humanity did perfectly well building modern civilization without it; it’s only been within the last couple hundred years that we have

Why any copyright at all? Humanity did perfectly well building modern civilization without it; it’s only been within the last couple hundred years that we have had copyright to any degree, much less it’s innovation-stifling modern format. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...

tptacek 4y ago
I don't think you'd be able to support with evidence the argument that copyright has stifled innovation, given that the "modern format" of copyright tracks an extraordinarily innovative period.
- benj111 4y ago
  Even you aren't identifying cause and effect though. Copyright postdates the printing press. Is it copyright or the printing press that led to the explosion in books? Then if you look at technology like the internet, there's plenty of people creating things, not for monetary reward, but because they enjoy it. Not that I'm necessarily on the same /page/ as the parent. I would defend copyright as a tool to enable new works to be created and allow creators to make a living, and ultimately get works into the public domain. As such I would limit copyright to a much shorter period.
Spivak 4y ago
So I don’t know if there’s any good answers to this but in a world without any copyright today you would have some $tech_giant scooping all copyrighted content in real time and streaming it for pennies. There would be no avenue at all for someone to make money on the actual content. It would all have to be side-channels like merch and product placements. Distributors would make money on ads and subscription dollars but none of it would get back to the creators. Musicians at least have live performances but the spiritual equivalent, theaters, are no different than the streaming service and wouldn’t pay either. Nobody would have to license art for prints, shirts, use by other businesses. Copyright sucks in so many ways but replacing it with nothing at all would actually kill creative industries. My personal ideal solution is copyright with fair (as to be determined by courts so you can’t charge $1e100) mandatory licensing. Wanna make a derivative work, use someone’s art, show a movie, have a show on your streaming service? As long as you pay the royalties nobody can tell you no.
- djbebs 4y ago
  >There would be no avenue at all for someone to make money on the actual content. Except this is trivially disprovable by simply looking at YouTube. Copyright plays essentially zero role in the business models of the vast majority of sucessful youtubers, and it is arguably a platform that is far more sucessful than traditional media at producing high quality, relevant content. Sure, if you get rid of copyright some business models will no longer be possible... but some new business models will now be viable. You wouldn't argue "we have to protect the baby crushing machine industry because if we don't then the baby crushers won't have a job", so why are you making that argument for copyright?
  - radicaldreamer 4y ago
    Copyright hasn't stopped rampant piracy and bootlegging either, but a lot of that is due to super annoying or unavailable legal ways to stream/acquire the same content.
jhbadger 4y ago
I am certainly against the continual copyright extensions where things now need to be almost a century old before they enter the public domain (at least in the US), but limited copyright has purpose -- it created the possibility of professional authors, for example. In ancient times the Romans who wrote things were almost entirely noblemen who did it as a hobby and didn't need to support themselves. And the Middle Ages a lot of authors were monks who were likewise supported by their monasteries. But in the early modern era authors were able (through copyright) to make a living doing that. And things like invention of the novel as we know it are from this period. Going back to life + 25 or life + 50 would still allow authors to make money, support their loved ones after their death, and still put things into the public domain while they are still more culturally relevant. Obviously, publishers wouldn't like that of course.

tptacek 4y ago

I don't think you'd be able to support with evidence the argument that copyright has stifled innovation, given that the "modern format" of copyright tracks an extraordinarily innovative period.

benj111 4y ago
Even you aren't identifying cause and effect though. Copyright postdates the printing press. Is it copyright or the printing press that led to the explosion in books? Then if you look at technology like the internet, there's plenty of people creating things, not for monetary reward, but because they enjoy it. Not that I'm necessarily on the same /page/ as the parent. I would defend copyright as a tool to enable new works to be created and allow creators to make a living, and ultimately get works into the public domain. As such I would limit copyright to a much shorter period.

Spivak 4y ago

So I don’t know if there’s any good answers to this but in a world without any copyright today you would have some $tech_giant scooping all copyrighted content in real time and streaming it for pennies. There would be no avenue at all for someone to make money on the actual content. It would all have to be side-channels like merch and product placements. Distributors would make money on ads and subscription dollars but none of it would get back to the creators. Musicians at least have live performances but the spiritual equivalent, theaters, are no different than the streaming service and wouldn’t pay either. Nobody would have to license art for prints, shirts, use by other businesses. Copyright sucks in so many ways but replacing it with nothing at all would actually kill creative industries. My personal ideal solution is copyright with fair (as to be determined by courts so you can’t charge $1e100) mandatory licensing. Wanna make a derivative work, use someone’s art, show a movie, have a show on your streaming service? As long as you pay the royalties nobody can tell you no.

djbebs 4y ago
>There would be no avenue at all for someone to make money on the actual content. Except this is trivially disprovable by simply looking at YouTube. Copyright plays essentially zero role in the business models of the vast majority of sucessful youtubers, and it is arguably a platform that is far more sucessful than traditional media at producing high quality, relevant content. Sure, if you get rid of copyright some business models will no longer be possible... but some new business models will now be viable. You wouldn't argue "we have to protect the baby crushing machine industry because if we don't then the baby crushers won't have a job", so why are you making that argument for copyright?
- radicaldreamer 4y ago
  Copyright hasn't stopped rampant piracy and bootlegging either, but a lot of that is due to super annoying or unavailable legal ways to stream/acquire the same content.

jhbadger 4y ago

I am certainly against the continual copyright extensions where things now need to be almost a century old before they enter the public domain (at least in the US), but limited copyright has purpose -- it created the possibility of professional authors, for example. In ancient times the Romans who wrote things were almost entirely noblemen who did it as a hobby and didn't need to support themselves. And the Middle Ages a lot of authors were monks who were likewise supported by their monasteries. But in the early modern era authors were able (through copyright) to make a living doing that. And things like invention of the novel as we know it are from this period. Going back to life + 25 or life + 50 would still allow authors to make money, support their loved ones after their death, and still put things into the public domain while they are still more culturally relevant. Obviously, publishers wouldn't like that of course.