4 ms·
> As I read it, the spirit of copyright is to give creators safeguards against their work being misused, so they aren't cagey about sharing it, in limited conte
by boxed 4y ago
> As I read it, the spirit of copyright is to give creators safeguards against their work being misused, so they aren't cagey about sharing it, in limited contexts
"misused"? "Someone else making money off it" more like it. Not so they aren't cagey about sharing it, but aren't basically ripped off.
Of course, nowadays people have gone all crazy. I had a discussion with a dude who seriously thought that if we could trace the invention of the wheel or the alphabet back in time, the living descendents of those inventors should own these inventions!
- zaphar 4y agoThe right to make money off of it is only one form of misuse that copyright protects. My source code that I publish under the Apache 2.0 license gives me the right to defend against other forms of misuse than just making money off of it. Some of which are: * Publishing the code without giving me attribution. * Shipping software to end users without giving them the source code. I care much more about those than I do whether someone is making money off of it.
- boxed 4y agoSure. But again, that's not why copyright was invented. The application of your terms is based on the same "I own ideas" meme that Disney used to increase their ownership of movies and characters pretty much indefinitely for decades. In my opinion you are both wrong. You agree with Disney on a premise that I reject. Attribution should imo be covered by some other law. It's a different thing. It's lying about facts.
- zaphar 4y agoIn theory each of the things I care about could be covered by different laws or regulations. However they aren't. The only tool I have for that is copyright. If you find a route to getting those alternative methods established I'm all ears but as it stands such a route does not exist. Copyright is what you have so copyright is what you have to use.