4 ms·
Just playing the devil's advocate here but what if the copyright owner does not want the content distributed anymore? Maybe now they find the content distastefu
by mertd 3y ago
Just playing the devil's advocate here but what if the copyright owner does not want the content distributed anymore? Maybe now they find the content distasteful or embarrassing.
- criddell 3y agoWu Tang Clan recorded an album and sold it to Martin Shkreli for $2 million (he no longer owns it). If I manage to get a copy of it, should I be able to distribute it freely?
- xNeil 3y agoYes. In fact, Shkreli promised to release the full album if Trump won 2016. I think he ended up releasing two tracks.
- criddell 3y agoDepending on the contract, Shkreli may have those rights. I’m talking about if I managed to record a copy of the record would there be anything wrong with me distributing it?
- aidenn0 3y agoThe original term on copyright was 28 years maximum; under that rule, most copyrighted works would already be in the public domain. I think 28 years is probably closer to the "right value" than 95 years, but I'd be okay with a bit longer.
- morsch 3y agoMaybe we should make it illegal to retell embarrassing stories without consent from the people involved.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoWho cares what they want? I don't. Culture should belong to us, not them. Copyright exists to allow them to turn a tidy profit so they're properly incentivized. It's not there to enable their delusions of control nor their perpetual rent seeking. They've already turned their profit, now it's time for the works to enter the public domain. Nobody cares whether they like it or not, it's human culture and it belongs to us all.
- kube-system 3y agoVanishingly little copyrighted material is culturally relevant. It seems silly to paint all copyrighted material with that brush.
- dTal 3y agoWho are you, or anyone else, to decide what is and isn't "culturally relevant"?
- kube-system 3y agoCulture itself does. I am referring to the fact that most things that people create are not published, do not become popular, and don't become culturally relevant. As much as I wish that my meeting notes from my standup this morning were good enough to become a cultural icon, I'm pretty sure the entire planet, including me, will forget about them next week. Mundane creations like this consist the vast majority of copyrighted works.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoCulture is everything produced by humans. Doesn't matter if it's "relevant" or not.
- kube-system 3y agoNo, there are many copyrighted works which are not a part of culture, by definition. For example, private creative works.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoI see what you mean now. If creators don't publish their creations, they won't be experienced by anyone. They don't matter to anyone, we don't even know they exist. I suppose it's sad in an existential way that their works could be lost without anyone experiencing them or any preservation efforts being made but what can you do?
- ncallaway 3y agoThat's too bad! The entire bargain with copyright is that creators are granted an exclusive period with their work in exchange for the work entering the public domain. That's the deal. It's a complete violation of the spirit of the copyright agreement to take advantage of the financially useful period of monopoly over the work, then use the remainder of the exclusive period to try and ensure the work cannot be archived and cannot enter the public domain.
- stcroixx 3y agoTemporary problem that will work itself out with time once the last creators die. After one generation under this system, nobody will create anything that isn't useless free garbage.
- account42 3y agoJust like noone ever created anything that wasn't useless free garbage before copyright?