3 ms·

> Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. Nah, decaying is the natural state of information. It requires non-trivial effort to keep inform

> Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. Nah, decaying is the natural state of information. It requires non-trivial effort to keep information available for reading and interpreting. Even paper, one of the best mediums for storing data over time, decomposes if not actively protected.

unaindz 4y ago
What does this have to do with anything? Libraries handle the preserving and sharing to the public of information. In spite of copyright, not thanks to it. Historically they literally copied one book into paper to duplicate/preserve it. That would be copyright infringement now. And more recently copyright holders are trying to delete any archives that could be used for that purpose like the internet archive or LibGen. In other media we have game roms and copies of shows being illegal. Same treatment if it has been a week since release or it's been 20 years and you can't get it legally from anywhere.
- qwytw 4y ago
  It was basically impossible to survive solely as a writer until copyright. Imagine publishing a book in the 16th century. At best you'd get some royalties from the initial publisher. After that if you work becomes popular every printer across the continent can start printing copies without paying you anything. That's obviously a huge impediment to innovation and progress.
  - account42 4y ago
    So? There are plenty of written works from before copyright. There would be more if we had been better about preservation. People will still write without copyright. Maybe the quality will even go up as there are fewer incentives for quantity over quality. If your argument for copyright relies on protecting speicific jobs then you have no argument. Jobs become obsolete all the time. If you want welfare then argue for that. Best if it isn't restricted to a small class of people.
    - qwytw 4y ago
      > People will still write without copyright Yes. Way less of them do cause very few people could afford to write. > Maybe the quality will even go up as there are fewer incentives for quantity over quality Maybe people who write/etc. time on average produce better quality than those who can only dedicate a few hours per day for it. Also you want to eradicate entire creative industries like cinema and television for no apparent reason. > If your argument for copyright relies on protecting speicific jobs then you have no argument No my argument is that copyright protection (including patents) was one of the main driving forces behind the progress of human progress over the last 300-500 years. Obviously the current system is not perfect, I'm not saying it is... Overall it still made the world a much better place than it would have been without it.
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        Then let's agree to limit it to 10 years. That's a tolerable amount of time. More than enough for these corporations to turn a profit many times over.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Humanity would be more than happy to make that effort if there was no risk of getting sued to oblivion for it. There's more than enough distributed storage capacity out there to hold it all. Copyright holders are the ones who are outright hostile to any and all preservation efforts, to the point preservation of culture is an argument for getting rid of copyright.
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  Preservation has nothing to do with copyright. Buy a book, and preserve it yourself. Done. Oh, but you're only arguing against copyright so you can freely take others work without remuneration. IF you're a creator, and you believe that copyright shouldn't exist - everything you produce, please... put it in the public domain and see what happens.
  - account42 4y ago
    Preservation across long enough timelines requires duplication as well as sharing between people.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > Preservation has nothing to do with copyright. Buy a book, and preserve it yourself. Done. Wrong. My house burns down, the book is gone. Your advice is worse than using RAID is as a backup solution. Preservation requires multiple independent redundant copies widely distributed over large geographical areas, cryptographically verified. Surely you can see how that flies in the face of copyright, a legal mechanism to give authors a monopoly on the production of copies. Truth is bittorrent did more for preservation of culture that copyright ever did. You could even quantify how well preserved the data was since you could count how many redundant copies were present in the swarm.
    - deafpolygon 4y ago
      Cryptographically verified? How did we do it all these years? And I would like a source for your claim regarding BitTorrent.

unaindz 4y ago

What does this have to do with anything? Libraries handle the preserving and sharing to the public of information. In spite of copyright, not thanks to it. Historically they literally copied one book into paper to duplicate/preserve it. That would be copyright infringement now. And more recently copyright holders are trying to delete any archives that could be used for that purpose like the internet archive or LibGen. In other media we have game roms and copies of shows being illegal. Same treatment if it has been a week since release or it's been 20 years and you can't get it legally from anywhere.

qwytw 4y ago
It was basically impossible to survive solely as a writer until copyright. Imagine publishing a book in the 16th century. At best you'd get some royalties from the initial publisher. After that if you work becomes popular every printer across the continent can start printing copies without paying you anything. That's obviously a huge impediment to innovation and progress.
- account42 4y ago
  So? There are plenty of written works from before copyright. There would be more if we had been better about preservation. People will still write without copyright. Maybe the quality will even go up as there are fewer incentives for quantity over quality. If your argument for copyright relies on protecting speicific jobs then you have no argument. Jobs become obsolete all the time. If you want welfare then argue for that. Best if it isn't restricted to a small class of people.
  - qwytw 4y ago
    > People will still write without copyright Yes. Way less of them do cause very few people could afford to write. > Maybe the quality will even go up as there are fewer incentives for quantity over quality Maybe people who write/etc. time on average produce better quality than those who can only dedicate a few hours per day for it. Also you want to eradicate entire creative industries like cinema and television for no apparent reason. > If your argument for copyright relies on protecting speicific jobs then you have no argument No my argument is that copyright protection (including patents) was one of the main driving forces behind the progress of human progress over the last 300-500 years. Obviously the current system is not perfect, I'm not saying it is... Overall it still made the world a much better place than it would have been without it.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      Then let's agree to limit it to 10 years. That's a tolerable amount of time. More than enough for these corporations to turn a profit many times over.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Humanity would be more than happy to make that effort if there was no risk of getting sued to oblivion for it. There's more than enough distributed storage capacity out there to hold it all. Copyright holders are the ones who are outright hostile to any and all preservation efforts, to the point preservation of culture is an argument for getting rid of copyright.

deafpolygon 4y ago
Preservation has nothing to do with copyright. Buy a book, and preserve it yourself. Done. Oh, but you're only arguing against copyright so you can freely take others work without remuneration. IF you're a creator, and you believe that copyright shouldn't exist - everything you produce, please... put it in the public domain and see what happens.
- account42 4y ago
  Preservation across long enough timelines requires duplication as well as sharing between people.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > Preservation has nothing to do with copyright. Buy a book, and preserve it yourself. Done. Wrong. My house burns down, the book is gone. Your advice is worse than using RAID is as a backup solution. Preservation requires multiple independent redundant copies widely distributed over large geographical areas, cryptographically verified. Surely you can see how that flies in the face of copyright, a legal mechanism to give authors a monopoly on the production of copies. Truth is bittorrent did more for preservation of culture that copyright ever did. You could even quantify how well preserved the data was since you could count how many redundant copies were present in the swarm.
  - deafpolygon 4y ago
    Cryptographically verified? How did we do it all these years? And I would like a source for your claim regarding BitTorrent.