4 ms·

Would you be pleased if that applied to all of your work too? That immediately anyone can start taking your work and making money off of it? Copyright at least

Would you be pleased if that applied to all of your work too? That immediately anyone can start taking your work and making money off of it? Copyright at least makes big players pay the original creators for the rights to the works. Netflix going ahead and making money off of subscribers while paying nothing to creators would be a significantly worse situation.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> Would you be pleased if that applied to all of your work too? That immediately anyone can start taking your work and making money off of it? Sure. From now on I either release my software as AGPLv3 or I don't release it at all. Truth is even if someone violates my license I'm not gonna waste my limited time on this earth litigating against them in court over it. I have better things to do. Stallman would disagree but I think licenses like GPL shouldn't even exist at all: they all depend on copyright to enforce their terms and copyright shouldn't exist in the first place. It's fair as long as nobody is protected: billion dollar corporations can make money off my code but I can make money off of theirs too. Netflix code gets leaked? Oops, looks like it's our code now. Also, Netflix literally exists to solve the problems created by copyright itself. It's ironic how it was ultimately destroyed by copyright holders when they pulled their precious content and started their own shitty streaming services instead. Were it not for copyright, we'd all be using peer to peer technology invented decades ago to consume content much more efficiently. Everything humanity ever created would be available at our fingertips.
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  I don't know about Stallman, but, as I interpret it, Bradley Kuhn agrees with you. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-source-putin-ukraine/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-...
- falcolas 3y ago
  > From now on I either release my software as AGPLv3 Why not just make it public domain? That's the default in a world without the right of ownership of code. > Oops, looks like it's our code now. How would you make money of it? It's not like you can sell it. > Were it not for copyright, we'd all be using peer to peer technology invented decades ago to consume content much more efficiently What content? How would it be paid for, since there's nothing that could be sold? Even hobby movies are done to make money.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > Why not just make it public domain? That's the default in a world without the right of ownership of code. Because if I do that I'm just unconditionally transferring wealth to corporations just as you claimed. No point in doing that while they still get to be "all rights reserved". It's only fair if nobody's protected. > How would you make money of it? It's not like you can sell it. By using it to do improve our own systems. Apparently what the GPL already provides used to be the norm back in the day before copyright protection was applied to software. We should go back to those days. > How would it be paid for, since there's nothing that could be sold? Selling copies after the fact doesn't make sense. Paying for the product before the work is done does. Crowdfunding, patronage. I'm sure they'll figure it out if they have to.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > Crowdfunding, patronage. I'm sure they'll figure it out if they have to So basically every creator would have to have a rich patron/be funded by a government/etc. who would obviously generally want to impose their own agendas? > Crowdfunding So unless an author already has a widespread reputation and a large group of people willing to support him he has no right to benefit from his works? Somebody who is completely unknown but ends up publishing a book which ends up widely popular gets absolutely nothing? I find it inconceivable bizarre that anyone would ever want to live in such a dark and intellectually subdued world for some ideological reason. I mean abolishing copyright would throw us back to the 15-16th century just with internet instead of the printing press...
      - dandellion 3y ago
        But most of that happens already? That's how record labels and publishers do business. You are already living in that dark an intellectually subdued world. A few examples I remember: https://www.pcgamer.com/the-legal-war-over-disco-elysium-reaches-disco-elysium-levels-of-complexity/ https://www.pcgamer.com/the-legal-war-over-disco-elysium-rea... https://kotaku.com/witcher-author-threatens-cd-projekt-red-with-legal-acti-1829465193 https://kotaku.com/witcher-author-threatens-cd-projekt-red-w... https://www.dualshockers.com/nintendo-copyright-strikes-lawsuits-gary-bowser/ https://www.dualshockers.com/nintendo-copyright-strikes-laws... Copyright is not in place to protect the authors, but to protect the corporations that own the rights.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > Netflix literally exists to solve the problems created by copyright itself You do realize that barely any of that content they provide would even exist without copyright. There would be two outcomes either movies only get released in cinemas and the original copy is for projection is heavily guarded with not official "home video" releases at all or no movies with a significant budget ever get released. > Everything humanity ever created would be available at our fingertips. Yes but "Everything" in that situation would only be a marginal proportion of what is available now. Forget expensive movies/tv shows/etc. how could even any writer make a living on his own without having to rely on some reason patron or a full time job like back in the 16th century?
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    You're telling me these creators can't find a way to continue working without copyright? Come on. Even big companies use stuff like kickstarter and patreon to raise funds. They'll be fine.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  Bold of you to assume that content hasn't been lost. No amount of money is bringing it back. Copyright has nothing to do with it. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/501607/wipe-out-when-bbc-kept-erasing-its-own-history https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/501607/wipe-out-when-bbc... https://www.historytoday.com/archive/missing-pieces/lost-movies https://www.historytoday.com/archive/missing-pieces/lost-mov...
kmeisthax 3y ago
This already happens today. Copyright does not protect authors, it protects publishers. This is justified as protecting authors in the very narrow sense that authors did get to negotiate with publishers first, but at the most disadvantaged position they will ever be at in their career. They have to pay, but they can pay a pittance and authors will take it because they have no better options. The low- or zero-copyright world would at least end the practice of publishers buying rights to works and then pushing the artists who made them out of it. For example, there are loads of unfinished trilogies whose authors would love to finish them, but the publishers don't want them to, because they consider it a lost cause. Nor do they want their authors self-publishing or going with another outfit, so they won't revert ownership back to the artists, because an unexploited, worthless copyright is still worth more as part of a horde of gold that they sleep on.
- Matheus28 3y ago
  No copyright means publisher can just take that draft, edit it and publish giving 0 to the author.
  - account42 3y ago
    Any anyone can take their edits and republish. Yes, this means the original author will need a different business model. So what?
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    NDAs would still apply even in a zero-copyright world. Of course, there's the related question of whether or not publishers would actually agree to nondisclosure in said world, and whether or not authors would care to actually refuse publication agreements that lacked them. The thing about publishers is that none of them are interested in publishing without copyright. Authors have inherent advantages in their craft that would at least leave them with something in a zero-copyright world - you can still crowdfund literature, and that's why you see plenty of self-published authors but not that many self-published filmmakers[0]. But publishers can't - all the things that make them money require not just copyright, but also sublicensing rights on derivative works. In the zero-copyright world they're all fighting to republish things that people already have. So they need copyright ownership with licensing terms that subtly disfavor authors instead. That being said, I'm not an advocate for zero-copyright. That's the nuclear option. But it does need to be pared back to protecting artists from publishers[1], rather than protecting publishers from readers. [0] YouTubers and TikTokers don't count, that's a different medium. [1] And, also, Amazon and friends
MitPitt 3y ago
Netflix subscriptions wouldn't exist in this situation, your example is flawed
- desmond373 3y ago
  I'm capable of pirating and yet I have a Netflix subscription because the service is better and I like some of the shows they produce. There's still a customer base, it's just not held hostage.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> Would you be pleased if that applied to all of your work too? That immediately anyone can start taking your work and making money off of it? Sure. From now on I either release my software as AGPLv3 or I don't release it at all. Truth is even if someone violates my license I'm not gonna waste my limited time on this earth litigating against them in court over it. I have better things to do. Stallman would disagree but I think licenses like GPL shouldn't even exist at all: they all depend on copyright to enforce their terms and copyright shouldn't exist in the first place. It's fair as long as nobody is protected: billion dollar corporations can make money off my code but I can make money off of theirs too. Netflix code gets leaked? Oops, looks like it's our code now. Also, Netflix literally exists to solve the problems created by copyright itself. It's ironic how it was ultimately destroyed by copyright holders when they pulled their precious content and started their own shitty streaming services instead. Were it not for copyright, we'd all be using peer to peer technology invented decades ago to consume content much more efficiently. Everything humanity ever created would be available at our fingertips.

rhn_mk1 3y ago
I don't know about Stallman, but, as I interpret it, Bradley Kuhn agrees with you. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-source-putin-ukraine/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-...
falcolas 3y ago
> From now on I either release my software as AGPLv3 Why not just make it public domain? That's the default in a world without the right of ownership of code. > Oops, looks like it's our code now. How would you make money of it? It's not like you can sell it. > Were it not for copyright, we'd all be using peer to peer technology invented decades ago to consume content much more efficiently What content? How would it be paid for, since there's nothing that could be sold? Even hobby movies are done to make money.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > Why not just make it public domain? That's the default in a world without the right of ownership of code. Because if I do that I'm just unconditionally transferring wealth to corporations just as you claimed. No point in doing that while they still get to be "all rights reserved". It's only fair if nobody's protected. > How would you make money of it? It's not like you can sell it. By using it to do improve our own systems. Apparently what the GPL already provides used to be the norm back in the day before copyright protection was applied to software. We should go back to those days. > How would it be paid for, since there's nothing that could be sold? Selling copies after the fact doesn't make sense. Paying for the product before the work is done does. Crowdfunding, patronage. I'm sure they'll figure it out if they have to.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > Crowdfunding, patronage. I'm sure they'll figure it out if they have to So basically every creator would have to have a rich patron/be funded by a government/etc. who would obviously generally want to impose their own agendas? > Crowdfunding So unless an author already has a widespread reputation and a large group of people willing to support him he has no right to benefit from his works? Somebody who is completely unknown but ends up publishing a book which ends up widely popular gets absolutely nothing? I find it inconceivable bizarre that anyone would ever want to live in such a dark and intellectually subdued world for some ideological reason. I mean abolishing copyright would throw us back to the 15-16th century just with internet instead of the printing press...
    - dandellion 3y ago
      But most of that happens already? That's how record labels and publishers do business. You are already living in that dark an intellectually subdued world. A few examples I remember: https://www.pcgamer.com/the-legal-war-over-disco-elysium-reaches-disco-elysium-levels-of-complexity/ https://www.pcgamer.com/the-legal-war-over-disco-elysium-rea... https://kotaku.com/witcher-author-threatens-cd-projekt-red-with-legal-acti-1829465193 https://kotaku.com/witcher-author-threatens-cd-projekt-red-w... https://www.dualshockers.com/nintendo-copyright-strikes-lawsuits-gary-bowser/ https://www.dualshockers.com/nintendo-copyright-strikes-laws... Copyright is not in place to protect the authors, but to protect the corporations that own the rights.
qwytw 3y ago
> Netflix literally exists to solve the problems created by copyright itself You do realize that barely any of that content they provide would even exist without copyright. There would be two outcomes either movies only get released in cinemas and the original copy is for projection is heavily guarded with not official "home video" releases at all or no movies with a significant budget ever get released. > Everything humanity ever created would be available at our fingertips. Yes but "Everything" in that situation would only be a marginal proportion of what is available now. Forget expensive movies/tv shows/etc. how could even any writer make a living on his own without having to rely on some reason patron or a full time job like back in the 16th century?
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  You're telling me these creators can't find a way to continue working without copyright? Come on. Even big companies use stuff like kickstarter and patreon to raise funds. They'll be fine.
hammyhavoc 3y ago
Bold of you to assume that content hasn't been lost. No amount of money is bringing it back. Copyright has nothing to do with it. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/501607/wipe-out-when-bbc-kept-erasing-its-own-history https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/501607/wipe-out-when-bbc... https://www.historytoday.com/archive/missing-pieces/lost-movies https://www.historytoday.com/archive/missing-pieces/lost-mov...

kmeisthax 3y ago

This already happens today. Copyright does not protect authors, it protects publishers. This is justified as protecting authors in the very narrow sense that authors did get to negotiate with publishers first, but at the most disadvantaged position they will ever be at in their career. They have to pay, but they can pay a pittance and authors will take it because they have no better options. The low- or zero-copyright world would at least end the practice of publishers buying rights to works and then pushing the artists who made them out of it. For example, there are loads of unfinished trilogies whose authors would love to finish them, but the publishers don't want them to, because they consider it a lost cause. Nor do they want their authors self-publishing or going with another outfit, so they won't revert ownership back to the artists, because an unexploited, worthless copyright is still worth more as part of a horde of gold that they sleep on.

Matheus28 3y ago
No copyright means publisher can just take that draft, edit it and publish giving 0 to the author.
- account42 3y ago
  Any anyone can take their edits and republish. Yes, this means the original author will need a different business model. So what?
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  NDAs would still apply even in a zero-copyright world. Of course, there's the related question of whether or not publishers would actually agree to nondisclosure in said world, and whether or not authors would care to actually refuse publication agreements that lacked them. The thing about publishers is that none of them are interested in publishing without copyright. Authors have inherent advantages in their craft that would at least leave them with something in a zero-copyright world - you can still crowdfund literature, and that's why you see plenty of self-published authors but not that many self-published filmmakers[0]. But publishers can't - all the things that make them money require not just copyright, but also sublicensing rights on derivative works. In the zero-copyright world they're all fighting to republish things that people already have. So they need copyright ownership with licensing terms that subtly disfavor authors instead. That being said, I'm not an advocate for zero-copyright. That's the nuclear option. But it does need to be pared back to protecting artists from publishers[1], rather than protecting publishers from readers. [0] YouTubers and TikTokers don't count, that's a different medium. [1] And, also, Amazon and friends

MitPitt 3y ago

Netflix subscriptions wouldn't exist in this situation, your example is flawed

desmond373 3y ago
I'm capable of pirating and yet I have a Netflix subscription because the service is better and I like some of the shows they produce. There's still a customer base, it's just not held hostage.