4 ms·

How would abolishing copyright law not make everyone (but the content creator) basically the equivalent of a vampire AI corporation slurping up what they please

How would abolishing copyright law not make everyone (but the content creator) basically the equivalent of a vampire AI corporation slurping up what they please? Why would anyone create when everyone instantly gets to use their hard work in any way they want? It's like abolishing all property rights.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
I'm saying that even abolishing copyright law might be an improvement. I didn't imply that that was the best idea (definitely not). Preferably copyright should be replaced by something that better promotes the arts and sciences. === Even so: to respond to who would create even if copyright law would be abolished: A lot of people create with the intent of letting everyone instantly get to use their hard work. This is actually rather common. Huge amounts of fan-art, original art, original fiction and original fiction get created every day. Scientific articles get written every day. Wikipedia gets written every day. Open source software gets written every day. And let's not start about AI art and AI text (which currently is all PD) . 90% of this all might be crap, but then 90% of everything is crap. There are definitely gems among the 10%, just like everywhere else. And due to the sheer volume: there are a lot of gems. Much of this activity would still happen without copyright law. There is clearly sufficient incentive at least. Fun is a common incentive. Sharing back is a common incentive too. Advancing the course of science. Earning fame. Or you can just earn money. People earn money this way. I earn money this way. In this kind of situation, you pay the bills by "making things that don't exist yet". Current copyright law has actually often gotten in the way more than that it has helped, I feel. I can tell you stories if you like! This does differ a bit per field and profession, of course. === But really copyright law should be replaced: If you actually want to earn money by depending on copyright law, I feel you're getting short-changed at the moment. AI will "steal" your style; youtube, spotify and amazon will pay you mere pennies, of which apple might will pinch a percentage, your publisher will pinch a percentage, and you get left with ... very little. Copyright frankly isn't helping many people right now. I don't think anyone is happy. Unless you know a bevy of small creators now living in mansions in Beverly Hills? I'd love to hear of it!
- modriano 4y ago
  > Unless you know a bevy of small creators now living in mansions in Beverly Hills? Per a google search, it seems that mainly very famous actors, actresses, and generally people who've contributed significantly to our culture live in Beverly Hills. The google results are definitely biased towards celebrities, but Beverly Hills seems to be a very odd example to choose when trying to point out how copyright isn't helping creators. It's natural to expect some proportionality between a creator's audience and the profit the can make monetizing their work.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    The story goes that many people in the creative professions earn very little or even can't make ends meet; thus mansions in Beverly Hills are only available to the few. This is especially true of small creators afaict.
    - modriano 4y ago
      I've heard of the trope of the "starving artist", but mainly in the context of the art world Vincent Van Gogh and his contemporaries lived in. I do not have any data to corroborate it as a true representation of any significant population that exists in reality today. Can you point to examples of any small creators who would be better off if they had no legal copyright over their works?
      - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
        So many assumptions in that question! I think the site rules do imply you're not supposed to go for the straw man argument that ends a debate, but rather for the steel-man argument that stimulates further curious conversation. So let's go for that then... : People often build on each other's work. Can you imagine situations where people can take inspiration from each other a whole lot earlier, or are allowed to borrow ideas sooner and more often? This does happen in eg. open source and open content. More traditionally, scientists also reference each other's papers. Sometimes there's also times like eg. when sampling first became popular: this lead to a period of creative bloom in music.
cataphract 4y ago
The answer to your question depends on the field in question. Plenty of areas have no or little copyright protection and still have thriving creativity: cooking, fashion, comedy routines, etc. It can be a first mover advantage, social conventions, or other reasons.
account42 4y ago
> Why would anyone create when everyone instantly gets to use their hard work in any way they want? Because creating is part of human nature. Many creators actually enjoy doing what they do. Now I don't disagree that it is in our interest to make sure that people can afford to create but that doesn't have to mean copyright at all.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago

I'm saying that even abolishing copyright law might be an improvement. I didn't imply that that was the best idea (definitely not). Preferably copyright should be replaced by something that better promotes the arts and sciences. === Even so: to respond to who would create even if copyright law would be abolished: A lot of people create with the intent of letting everyone instantly get to use their hard work. This is actually rather common. Huge amounts of fan-art, original art, original fiction and original fiction get created every day. Scientific articles get written every day. Wikipedia gets written every day. Open source software gets written every day. And let's not start about AI art and AI text (which currently is all PD) . 90% of this all might be crap, but then 90% of everything is crap. There are definitely gems among the 10%, just like everywhere else. And due to the sheer volume: there are a lot of gems. Much of this activity would still happen without copyright law. There is clearly sufficient incentive at least. Fun is a common incentive. Sharing back is a common incentive too. Advancing the course of science. Earning fame. Or you can just earn money. People earn money this way. I earn money this way. In this kind of situation, you pay the bills by "making things that don't exist yet". Current copyright law has actually often gotten in the way more than that it has helped, I feel. I can tell you stories if you like! This does differ a bit per field and profession, of course. === But really copyright law should be replaced: If you actually want to earn money by depending on copyright law, I feel you're getting short-changed at the moment. AI will "steal" your style; youtube, spotify and amazon will pay you mere pennies, of which apple might will pinch a percentage, your publisher will pinch a percentage, and you get left with ... very little. Copyright frankly isn't helping many people right now. I don't think anyone is happy. Unless you know a bevy of small creators now living in mansions in Beverly Hills? I'd love to hear of it!

modriano 4y ago
> Unless you know a bevy of small creators now living in mansions in Beverly Hills? Per a google search, it seems that mainly very famous actors, actresses, and generally people who've contributed significantly to our culture live in Beverly Hills. The google results are definitely biased towards celebrities, but Beverly Hills seems to be a very odd example to choose when trying to point out how copyright isn't helping creators. It's natural to expect some proportionality between a creator's audience and the profit the can make monetizing their work.
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  The story goes that many people in the creative professions earn very little or even can't make ends meet; thus mansions in Beverly Hills are only available to the few. This is especially true of small creators afaict.
  - modriano 4y ago
    I've heard of the trope of the "starving artist", but mainly in the context of the art world Vincent Van Gogh and his contemporaries lived in. I do not have any data to corroborate it as a true representation of any significant population that exists in reality today. Can you point to examples of any small creators who would be better off if they had no legal copyright over their works?
    - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
      So many assumptions in that question! I think the site rules do imply you're not supposed to go for the straw man argument that ends a debate, but rather for the steel-man argument that stimulates further curious conversation. So let's go for that then... : People often build on each other's work. Can you imagine situations where people can take inspiration from each other a whole lot earlier, or are allowed to borrow ideas sooner and more often? This does happen in eg. open source and open content. More traditionally, scientists also reference each other's papers. Sometimes there's also times like eg. when sampling first became popular: this lead to a period of creative bloom in music.

cataphract 4y ago

The answer to your question depends on the field in question. Plenty of areas have no or little copyright protection and still have thriving creativity: cooking, fashion, comedy routines, etc. It can be a first mover advantage, social conventions, or other reasons.

account42 4y ago

> Why would anyone create when everyone instantly gets to use their hard work in any way they want? Because creating is part of human nature. Many creators actually enjoy doing what they do. Now I don't disagree that it is in our interest to make sure that people can afford to create but that doesn't have to mean copyright at all.