12 ms·

Without copyright, moneyed interests would be able to simply wait for promising new artists to create something that resonates with an audience, then copy that

Without copyright, moneyed interests would be able to simply wait for promising new artists to create something that resonates with an audience, then copy that thing and aim their massive marketing budgets at dominating that audience with the new version owned by the [corporation, famous artist, etc]. Similar to how going viral with a new mobile game as an indie dev means you will almost immediately be cloned and pushed out by King et. al., removing copyright protections would mean that only the largest and wealthiest artists' and corporations' versions of art dominate the market. Creating something truly new and interesting would become simply a donation of that idea to the powers that be. The main problem with copyright isn't it's existence, it's that technology has allowed the wielding of it to become too quickly and brutally applied a la youtube's automated DMCA system.

Lacerda69 3y ago
I get your point i think. But copyright as it exists now does not protect or benefit the "little guy" or indie artists. There have been many many instances of big record labels or game producers ripping of small artists and I have yet to see 1 (one) instance of a small artist going against $bigcorp and winning. Copyright is broken; it only protects those already moneyed and in power and savagely attacks small artists, destroys the basis of creativity (sampling) and blocks access to vital research. It must be abolished.
- Retric 3y ago
  Copyright has transformed many poor people into multimillionaires. The Music world is full of artists going huge but it extends to other areas. J.K. Rawling for example didn’t have any significant leverage at the beginning but is wealthy by any reasonable metric.
  - dboreham 3y ago
    Was that a typo? Joanne is pretty rich by Scottish standards.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Ops, was going for not just just a multimillionaire but actually yacht wealthy but messed up the edit.
- bsenftner 3y ago
  Beware the abolishing of existing legal systems, because our status quo 'powers that be' will infiltrate the creation and managing organizations of whatever comes next to ensure the new situation is better for them than the old.
- thereddaikon 3y ago
  A problem relevant to this case directly is why works can be under copyright after the passing of their creator. There shouldn't be an Andy Warhol Foundation licensing works. This is purely a rent seeking behavior. The money made from licensing Andy Warhol works does not fund further output by the artist. They are dead. You just have some randos extracting wealth from society for the privilege to use something that the creator profited from long ago. The work of dead artists should be in the public domain.
  - jjcon 3y ago
    > The work of dead artists should be in the public domain. “Murder of popular musicians and artists up 1000% this year… news at 11” Joking aside, if I am the artist, shouldn’t I be able to give those rights to my children to provide for them after I’m gone? I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying but I think a reasonable threshold after death is appropriate (20 years maybe instead of 70?)
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      No, a reasonable threshold is 10 years after creation. The question is to what time threshold does society need to pay for police/courts/lawyers to enforce copyright law such that people are sufficiently incentivized to create whatever. For example, if copyright law were 10 years from date of creation, would we see too little in the way of creativity? Would singers still sing and writers still write and artists still paint/draw/whatever? I can see a viewpoint proposing 10, 15, even 20 years, but 100+ years is beyond the pale. That is just a handout from taxpayers to people that own the copyrights.
      - tracker1 3y ago
        I saw an interesting suggestion that copyright should just be for a given period at a given cost of registration... say first 10 years as-is, but if you want it longer, you pay X for N years, and it doubles each time you pay. I mean if Disney wants to pay $1B+ every few years to keep "Steamboat Willie" under copyright, let them. Eventually it will be cost prohibitive and enter the public domain.
- tivert 3y ago
  > But copyright as it exists now does not protect or benefit the "little guy" or indie artists. > There have been many many instances of big record labels or game producers ripping of small artists and I have yet to see 1 (one) instance of a small artist going against $bigcorp and winning. So your solution to small artists getting ripped off is to take away all the rights those small artists now enjoy, so they get ripped off harder and faster by "those already moneyed and in power"? Ok then. > Copyright is broken; it only protects those already moneyed and in power and savagely attacks small artists, destroys the basis of creativity (sampling) and blocks access to vital research. > It must be abolished. That's foolish radicalism. Progress doesn't happen by over-reacting to some problem and calling for the abolition of the whole system because it's imperfect. In all but a few rare cases, it happens by reforming things to solve the specific problems while preserving the other benefits. Copyright isn't one of those rare cases. Reform is in order, not abolition.
  - account42 3y ago
    > So your solution to small artists getting ripped off is to take away all the rights those small artists now enjoy, so they get ripped off harder and faster by "those already moneyed and in power"? Yes. Those "rights" are not free. They have an immense cost to society. If we want to collectively support artists we can do so without stifling creativity.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  But copyright as it exists now does not protect or benefit Fully agreed, and I would drastically curtail it. But complete abolition is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, ignoring the problem copyright was established to solve in the first place. I have yet to see 1 (one) instance of a small artist going against $bigcorp and winning Just did, in this very news story. It's happened on multiple occasions, it's just that such cases are weighed on their individual facts and don't lead to any change in the basic idea. Of course, big corporations always have a starting advantage because they can hire expensive legal teams and weigh down their opponents, but this is a general flaw in the adversarial litigation culture of the UK/US which is unabashedly pro-capitalist.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    I would assume that there was some legal financing behind this lawsuit. It's pretty easy to get if you have a decent case, and while they do take a decent chunk of your winnings, it's a lot better than nothing.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    > ignoring the problem copyright was established to solve in the first place Maintaining copy quality and providing a single point of contact for censorship? You probably mean some other goal people gave it by the end of the Modern Age.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      Tendentious nonsense. Copyright was instituted by the same people that came up with the first amendment. Publishers ripping off authors was a well-understood problem at the time, and even before; Daniel Defoe (author of Robinson Crusoe and many other successful books) wrote an essay addressing both freedom of the press and copyright in 1704: https://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord.php?id=record_uk_1704 https://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecor...
- freejazz 3y ago
  >But copyright as it exists now does not protect or benefit the "little guy" or indie artists. Yes it does and I'm a plaintiff's attorney that works in copyright and patent for small-time artists and inventors. You could not be more wrong. I have obtained settlements for my clients from some of the biggest media corporations in the US. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
  - progman32 3y ago
    Can you give specific cases for people to reference?
    - freejazz 3y ago
      They settled before going to suit, I didn't say I obtained verdicts, I said I obtained settlements. Verdicts aren't how most copyright infringement works (more evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about, at all). You do not have to file suit to assert a copyright. You just need the authority to file that suit, in order to have a meaningful threat from which an infringer (especially a large media company) will settle. If this is too hard for you to believe, I'm not sure what to tell you but to spend more time in the real world, and less on whatever media you are reading to engender these thoughts.
- chrismcb 3y ago
  Copyright is too long. But it isn't broken. And it does indeed protect the little guy
ajmurmann 3y ago
I'd add the duration of the copyright as another issue. The incentive to create would exist even with a much shorter copyright duration.
- ghaff 3y ago
  The main issue most people have with copyright relates to duration. Most don't have an issue with the basic concept.
gatvol 3y ago
Agreed - to an extent. IMO the current term of copyright is the primary issue - and the balance has tipped too far in favour of copyright holders; This case is a good example of the ridiculousness of that state - the artist has expired and is no longer able to enjoy the benefits of his work - yet he descendants expect to continue to profit from his work - which seems unreasonable and detrimental to society.
thebooktocome 3y ago
> Without copyright, moneyed interests would be able to simply wait for promising new artists to create something that resonates with an audience, then copy that thing and aim their massive marketing budgets at dominating that audience with the new version owned by the [corporation, famous artist, etc]. Copyright doesn’t mitigate this risk, for if it did, it would do the same thing for the example you cite in the second paragraph. (Software and game assets are also protected by copyright. . .)
AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
[dead]
LocalH 3y ago
Simple answer to begin discussion: copyright owned and controlled wholly by the people who actually created the art gets life+70 protection, with specific requirements (to be discussed) for the stewards of that copyright post-death. However, copyright owned or transferred to a corporation gets 28 with a 14 renewal.
- vidarh 3y ago
  This would get you contracts for licensing rights to exploitation to corporations instead of an outright transfer of copyright to circumvent the different length of protection.
  - LocalH 3y ago
    That would be absolutely fine, as long as those rights don't prevent the actual rightsholder from doing anything (past the "normal" corporate copyright length, in this hypothetical scenario). So such an "exclusive" license should max at 28 years, with a 14 year extension (requiring appropriate consideration, not some $1 backroom deal).
jameshart 3y ago
> the new version owned by the [corporation, famous artist, etc] Without copyright, what would corporation/famous artist ‘own’?
breck 3y ago
> The main problem with copyright isn't it's existence I disagree. The main problem with copyright is its existence. It cannot be logically explained as anything other than microslavery. If we think the world is a better place with microslavery, than that's an honest debate to have. But the current debate simply is not honest. Stephan Kinsella (a patent lawyer who is against IP) is the best thinker on the subject currently, IMO.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Yeah... Although the current situation where large communication companies have to be proactive and steal the great content with some unfair contract before the artist releases it is much better, it is still far from optimal.
account42 3y ago
> new version owned by the [corporation, famous artist, etc]. Owned? Without copyright?

Lacerda69 3y ago

I get your point i think. But copyright as it exists now does not protect or benefit the "little guy" or indie artists. There have been many many instances of big record labels or game producers ripping of small artists and I have yet to see 1 (one) instance of a small artist going against $bigcorp and winning. Copyright is broken; it only protects those already moneyed and in power and savagely attacks small artists, destroys the basis of creativity (sampling) and blocks access to vital research. It must be abolished.

Retric 3y ago
Copyright has transformed many poor people into multimillionaires. The Music world is full of artists going huge but it extends to other areas. J.K. Rawling for example didn’t have any significant leverage at the beginning but is wealthy by any reasonable metric.
- dboreham 3y ago
  Was that a typo? Joanne is pretty rich by Scottish standards.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Ops, was going for not just just a multimillionaire but actually yacht wealthy but messed up the edit.
bsenftner 3y ago
Beware the abolishing of existing legal systems, because our status quo 'powers that be' will infiltrate the creation and managing organizations of whatever comes next to ensure the new situation is better for them than the old.
thereddaikon 3y ago
A problem relevant to this case directly is why works can be under copyright after the passing of their creator. There shouldn't be an Andy Warhol Foundation licensing works. This is purely a rent seeking behavior. The money made from licensing Andy Warhol works does not fund further output by the artist. They are dead. You just have some randos extracting wealth from society for the privilege to use something that the creator profited from long ago. The work of dead artists should be in the public domain.
- jjcon 3y ago
  > The work of dead artists should be in the public domain. “Murder of popular musicians and artists up 1000% this year… news at 11” Joking aside, if I am the artist, shouldn’t I be able to give those rights to my children to provide for them after I’m gone? I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying but I think a reasonable threshold after death is appropriate (20 years maybe instead of 70?)
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    No, a reasonable threshold is 10 years after creation. The question is to what time threshold does society need to pay for police/courts/lawyers to enforce copyright law such that people are sufficiently incentivized to create whatever. For example, if copyright law were 10 years from date of creation, would we see too little in the way of creativity? Would singers still sing and writers still write and artists still paint/draw/whatever? I can see a viewpoint proposing 10, 15, even 20 years, but 100+ years is beyond the pale. That is just a handout from taxpayers to people that own the copyrights.
    - tracker1 3y ago
      I saw an interesting suggestion that copyright should just be for a given period at a given cost of registration... say first 10 years as-is, but if you want it longer, you pay X for N years, and it doubles each time you pay. I mean if Disney wants to pay $1B+ every few years to keep "Steamboat Willie" under copyright, let them. Eventually it will be cost prohibitive and enter the public domain.
tivert 3y ago
> But copyright as it exists now does not protect or benefit the "little guy" or indie artists. > There have been many many instances of big record labels or game producers ripping of small artists and I have yet to see 1 (one) instance of a small artist going against $bigcorp and winning. So your solution to small artists getting ripped off is to take away all the rights those small artists now enjoy, so they get ripped off harder and faster by "those already moneyed and in power"? Ok then. > Copyright is broken; it only protects those already moneyed and in power and savagely attacks small artists, destroys the basis of creativity (sampling) and blocks access to vital research. > It must be abolished. That's foolish radicalism. Progress doesn't happen by over-reacting to some problem and calling for the abolition of the whole system because it's imperfect. In all but a few rare cases, it happens by reforming things to solve the specific problems while preserving the other benefits. Copyright isn't one of those rare cases. Reform is in order, not abolition.
- account42 3y ago
  > So your solution to small artists getting ripped off is to take away all the rights those small artists now enjoy, so they get ripped off harder and faster by "those already moneyed and in power"? Yes. Those "rights" are not free. They have an immense cost to society. If we want to collectively support artists we can do so without stifling creativity.
anigbrowl 3y ago
But copyright as it exists now does not protect or benefit Fully agreed, and I would drastically curtail it. But complete abolition is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, ignoring the problem copyright was established to solve in the first place. I have yet to see 1 (one) instance of a small artist going against $bigcorp and winning Just did, in this very news story. It's happened on multiple occasions, it's just that such cases are weighed on their individual facts and don't lead to any change in the basic idea. Of course, big corporations always have a starting advantage because they can hire expensive legal teams and weigh down their opponents, but this is a general flaw in the adversarial litigation culture of the UK/US which is unabashedly pro-capitalist.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  I would assume that there was some legal financing behind this lawsuit. It's pretty easy to get if you have a decent case, and while they do take a decent chunk of your winnings, it's a lot better than nothing.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > ignoring the problem copyright was established to solve in the first place Maintaining copy quality and providing a single point of contact for censorship? You probably mean some other goal people gave it by the end of the Modern Age.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Tendentious nonsense. Copyright was instituted by the same people that came up with the first amendment. Publishers ripping off authors was a well-understood problem at the time, and even before; Daniel Defoe (author of Robinson Crusoe and many other successful books) wrote an essay addressing both freedom of the press and copyright in 1704: https://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord.php?id=record_uk_1704 https://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecor...
freejazz 3y ago
>But copyright as it exists now does not protect or benefit the "little guy" or indie artists. Yes it does and I'm a plaintiff's attorney that works in copyright and patent for small-time artists and inventors. You could not be more wrong. I have obtained settlements for my clients from some of the biggest media corporations in the US. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
- progman32 3y ago
  Can you give specific cases for people to reference?
  - freejazz 3y ago
    They settled before going to suit, I didn't say I obtained verdicts, I said I obtained settlements. Verdicts aren't how most copyright infringement works (more evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about, at all). You do not have to file suit to assert a copyright. You just need the authority to file that suit, in order to have a meaningful threat from which an infringer (especially a large media company) will settle. If this is too hard for you to believe, I'm not sure what to tell you but to spend more time in the real world, and less on whatever media you are reading to engender these thoughts.
chrismcb 3y ago
Copyright is too long. But it isn't broken. And it does indeed protect the little guy

ajmurmann 3y ago

I'd add the duration of the copyright as another issue. The incentive to create would exist even with a much shorter copyright duration.

ghaff 3y ago
The main issue most people have with copyright relates to duration. Most don't have an issue with the basic concept.

gatvol 3y ago

Agreed - to an extent. IMO the current term of copyright is the primary issue - and the balance has tipped too far in favour of copyright holders; This case is a good example of the ridiculousness of that state - the artist has expired and is no longer able to enjoy the benefits of his work - yet he descendants expect to continue to profit from his work - which seems unreasonable and detrimental to society.

thebooktocome 3y ago

> Without copyright, moneyed interests would be able to simply wait for promising new artists to create something that resonates with an audience, then copy that thing and aim their massive marketing budgets at dominating that audience with the new version owned by the [corporation, famous artist, etc]. Copyright doesn’t mitigate this risk, for if it did, it would do the same thing for the example you cite in the second paragraph. (Software and game assets are also protected by copyright. . .)

AlgorithmicTime 3y ago

[dead]

LocalH 3y ago

Simple answer to begin discussion: copyright owned and controlled wholly by the people who actually created the art gets life+70 protection, with specific requirements (to be discussed) for the stewards of that copyright post-death. However, copyright owned or transferred to a corporation gets 28 with a 14 renewal.

vidarh 3y ago
This would get you contracts for licensing rights to exploitation to corporations instead of an outright transfer of copyright to circumvent the different length of protection.
- LocalH 3y ago
  That would be absolutely fine, as long as those rights don't prevent the actual rightsholder from doing anything (past the "normal" corporate copyright length, in this hypothetical scenario). So such an "exclusive" license should max at 28 years, with a 14 year extension (requiring appropriate consideration, not some $1 backroom deal).

jameshart 3y ago

> the new version owned by the [corporation, famous artist, etc] Without copyright, what would corporation/famous artist ‘own’?

breck 3y ago

> The main problem with copyright isn't it's existence I disagree. The main problem with copyright is its existence. It cannot be logically explained as anything other than microslavery. If we think the world is a better place with microslavery, than that's an honest debate to have. But the current debate simply is not honest. Stephan Kinsella (a patent lawyer who is against IP) is the best thinker on the subject currently, IMO.

marcosdumay 3y ago

Yeah... Although the current situation where large communication companies have to be proactive and steal the great content with some unfair contract before the artist releases it is much better, it is still far from optimal.

account42 3y ago

> new version owned by the [corporation, famous artist, etc]. Owned? Without copyright?