4 ms·

Anne of Green Gables copyright is an interesting study in what happens here. There has been a recent tidal wave of "remixes" of the original work. TV shows, gr

Anne of Green Gables copyright is an interesting study in what happens here. There has been a recent tidal wave of "remixes" of the original work. TV shows, graphic novels, etc. My read: A lot of it is very good, very few new ideas are being created, and a lot of money is being made. It's hard to argue this counts toward anything like a "renaissance." The fundamental argument for copyright is that creators of certain works should able to earn a living based on those ideas; it turns something abstract into "property," thus granting property rights to a class of things that wouldn't otherwise have such rights. This allows people to become professional "idea creators." The problem to be solved with abolishing copyright, of course, is the problem of funding "idea creators." This doesn't seem to be something most opponents of copyright have solutions to. In the case of something like Anne of Green Gables, once the "property" is no longer exclusive to someone, it is much, much, much harder to generate an income from that property. Imagine building a house, but not having control over who enters it. Same idea. Maybe people shouldn't have long-term property rights at all? Who knows? That's starting to sound like communism or something.

rhn_mk1 3y ago
> Imagine building a house, but not having control over who enters it. Same idea. It's not quite the same idea. When you build a house for yourself, the implicit assumption is that you can't use it the same way if there's someone else in there. Put in a crowd and it's unuseable. On the other hand, multiple people can use a creative work simultaneously without noticing each other. If anything, it can make the experience richer. Your simile holds if you're not creating something with the goal of extracting value from using it, but with the goal of extracting money from others for using it. Which leads me to the conclusion that abolishing copyright would stop people creating things for sale (second scenario), but would not influence those who create for its own sake (first sccenario).
- boplicity 3y ago
  > influence those who create for its own sake Of course it influences those who create for its own sake. "Creators" are people who need money on a fundamental level, to pay for food, shelter, etc. If you make it impossible for them to earn a living from being creative, you're limiting such creativity to those who are otherwise independently wealthy. In other words, you're making it harder for the less-well-off to actually be creative.

rhn_mk1 3y ago

> Imagine building a house, but not having control over who enters it. Same idea. It's not quite the same idea. When you build a house for yourself, the implicit assumption is that you can't use it the same way if there's someone else in there. Put in a crowd and it's unuseable. On the other hand, multiple people can use a creative work simultaneously without noticing each other. If anything, it can make the experience richer. Your simile holds if you're not creating something with the goal of extracting value from using it, but with the goal of extracting money from others for using it. Which leads me to the conclusion that abolishing copyright would stop people creating things for sale (second scenario), but would not influence those who create for its own sake (first sccenario).

boplicity 3y ago
> influence those who create for its own sake Of course it influences those who create for its own sake. "Creators" are people who need money on a fundamental level, to pay for food, shelter, etc. If you make it impossible for them to earn a living from being creative, you're limiting such creativity to those who are otherwise independently wealthy. In other words, you're making it harder for the less-well-off to actually be creative.