4 ms·

So what value does that give society?

by floomk 3y ago

kube-system 3y ago
Privacy. I have the right to make something, not share it, and prevent others from sharing it without my permission. Or I may share it only with those who I choose to share it with.
- floomk 3y ago
  That's fine, just don't share it. If you don't intend to use it commercially you do not deserve commercial protections.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Strong disagree. If I choose not to share something today, I do deserve, at a minimum: 1. the right to commercially share it later 2. the right to prevent others from commercially sharing it without my permission 3. the right to share my creations with a limited group of people, commercially or non-commercially Say for instance, you share a creative work with someone in confidence. They should not have the right to freely copy and publish your work without your permission. It is very common for people to create works which are private and or shared with small groups of people, and it is important for our laws to protect people's rights to keep those works private or semi-private. Or to put it another way, a 'leak' of a private work shouldn't be a free pass for the rest of the world to share and/or monetize that breach of privacy.
    - trinsic2 3y ago
      > Or to put it another way, a 'leak' of a private work shouldn't be a free pass for the rest of the world to share and monetize that breach of privacy. I half-agree with you on this. On the one had when you share information with others, people should have some kind of right to share with others when you shared with them. On the other hand I don't think that someone has the right to profit off of something you created without your permission. IMHO, there is no kind of privacy when it comes to sharing something unless there is a meeting-of-the-minds agreement that all parties agree to before hand.
    - floomk 3y ago
      NDAs are a thing. You don't need invasive copyright laws for any of this.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        Yes, but NDAs are not automatic and are too cumbersome to protect people in anything but the most formal, pre-planned, and equitable situations. There are many scenarios where people deserve these protections and NDAs wouldn't be possible or practical. For instance: * An artist improvising in public * Someone sharing with another party in a situation with a large power imbalance (and so they refuse to sign an NDA with anyone) * Someone sharing in a social situation where NDAs are not practical (romantic, familial, or personal relationships)
        floomk 3y ago
        > * An artist improvising in public You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. > * Someone sharing with another party in a situation with a large power imbalance (and so they refuse to sign an NDA with anyone) Don't share it with them until they sign. If they sign and violate the NDA, you got your payday. > * Someone sharing in a social situation where NDAs are not practical (romantic, familial, or personal relationships) If you don't trust your spouse then get a prenup. The other categories aren't special. That said, if your work is so easy to copy it probably wasn't (or shouldn't have been) valuable to begin with. Implementation matters more than ideas. So most of these concerns are silly to me.
        kube-system 3y ago
        No, an artist absolutely should have a reasonable expectation that their improv at a coffee shop won't be ripped off next week by a billion dollar publisher. > Don't share it with them until they sign. Which would be possible in a situation where someone has the power to do so, but this isn't always the case. In industries where there are large negotiating power imbalances between creators and others they work with, you will typically find that creators have little to no negotiation power. There's a reason we have many legal protections in many parts of the law outside of contract law. > If you don't trust your spouse then get a prenup. The other categories aren't special. A spouse is the most formal of the examples I listed. And a spouse in many places is someone you've already entered into a formal legal agreement with. But to the contrary, I don't think it is reasonable to expect people bring NDAs to a first date. > That said, if your work is so easy to copy it probably wasn't (or shouldn't have been) valuable to begin with. Implementation matters more than ideas. So most of these concerns are silly to me. The concept of privacy isn't predicated on monetary value.
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    It's not strictly commercial vs non-commercial though, I could sell the only copy of something for a lot of money... and copyright ensures that it can't be legally reproduced.
  - theoriginaldog 3y ago
    copyright has nothing to do with commercial protections, it gives you the exclusive right to have control over of creative work you produced. If you have copyright no-one is allowed to copy your work without your permission, no matter if it is for commercial use or private use. Its about intellectual ownership, not commercial usage.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Why should you have that right? Is society as a whole improved by that right? Can it be improved further by tweaking or limiting that right?
- aequitas 3y ago
  But you don’t need public copyright for that. If you share something with a limited set of parties just draft an NDA. If you publish to the public with which you can make no prior agreement you use copyright.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    The fact that copyrights are automatic is a gigantic reason why NDAs aren't a good solution for this. The people who are in the best position to abuse someone's creative privacy are often the same people who won't sign NDAs.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  What if I want privacy in matters that are not copyright able? Clearly copyright is for commercial property, and privacy is an entirely separate matter that should be dealt with by anti-stalking laws, etc.

So what value does that give society?

by floomk 3y ago

So what value does that give society?

Privacy. I have the right to make something, not share it, and prevent others from sharing it without my permission. Or I may share it only with those who I choose to share it with.

floomk 3y ago
That's fine, just don't share it. If you don't intend to use it commercially you do not deserve commercial protections.
- kube-system 3y ago
  Strong disagree. If I choose not to share something today, I do deserve, at a minimum: 1. the right to commercially share it later 2. the right to prevent others from commercially sharing it without my permission 3. the right to share my creations with a limited group of people, commercially or non-commercially Say for instance, you share a creative work with someone in confidence. They should not have the right to freely copy and publish your work without your permission. It is very common for people to create works which are private and or shared with small groups of people, and it is important for our laws to protect people's rights to keep those works private or semi-private. Or to put it another way, a 'leak' of a private work shouldn't be a free pass for the rest of the world to share and/or monetize that breach of privacy.
  - trinsic2 3y ago
    > Or to put it another way, a 'leak' of a private work shouldn't be a free pass for the rest of the world to share and monetize that breach of privacy. I half-agree with you on this. On the one had when you share information with others, people should have some kind of right to share with others when you shared with them. On the other hand I don't think that someone has the right to profit off of something you created without your permission. IMHO, there is no kind of privacy when it comes to sharing something unless there is a meeting-of-the-minds agreement that all parties agree to before hand.
  - floomk 3y ago
    NDAs are a thing. You don't need invasive copyright laws for any of this.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      Yes, but NDAs are not automatic and are too cumbersome to protect people in anything but the most formal, pre-planned, and equitable situations. There are many scenarios where people deserve these protections and NDAs wouldn't be possible or practical. For instance: * An artist improvising in public * Someone sharing with another party in a situation with a large power imbalance (and so they refuse to sign an NDA with anyone) * Someone sharing in a social situation where NDAs are not practical (romantic, familial, or personal relationships)
      - floomk 3y ago
        > * An artist improvising in public You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. > * Someone sharing with another party in a situation with a large power imbalance (and so they refuse to sign an NDA with anyone) Don't share it with them until they sign. If they sign and violate the NDA, you got your payday. > * Someone sharing in a social situation where NDAs are not practical (romantic, familial, or personal relationships) If you don't trust your spouse then get a prenup. The other categories aren't special. That said, if your work is so easy to copy it probably wasn't (or shouldn't have been) valuable to begin with. Implementation matters more than ideas. So most of these concerns are silly to me.
        kube-system 3y ago
        No, an artist absolutely should have a reasonable expectation that their improv at a coffee shop won't be ripped off next week by a billion dollar publisher. > Don't share it with them until they sign. Which would be possible in a situation where someone has the power to do so, but this isn't always the case. In industries where there are large negotiating power imbalances between creators and others they work with, you will typically find that creators have little to no negotiation power. There's a reason we have many legal protections in many parts of the law outside of contract law. > If you don't trust your spouse then get a prenup. The other categories aren't special. A spouse is the most formal of the examples I listed. And a spouse in many places is someone you've already entered into a formal legal agreement with. But to the contrary, I don't think it is reasonable to expect people bring NDAs to a first date. > That said, if your work is so easy to copy it probably wasn't (or shouldn't have been) valuable to begin with. Implementation matters more than ideas. So most of these concerns are silly to me. The concept of privacy isn't predicated on monetary value.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  It's not strictly commercial vs non-commercial though, I could sell the only copy of something for a lot of money... and copyright ensures that it can't be legally reproduced.
- theoriginaldog 3y ago
  copyright has nothing to do with commercial protections, it gives you the exclusive right to have control over of creative work you produced. If you have copyright no-one is allowed to copy your work without your permission, no matter if it is for commercial use or private use. Its about intellectual ownership, not commercial usage.
concordDance 3y ago
Why should you have that right? Is society as a whole improved by that right? Can it be improved further by tweaking or limiting that right?
aequitas 3y ago
But you don’t need public copyright for that. If you share something with a limited set of parties just draft an NDA. If you publish to the public with which you can make no prior agreement you use copyright.
- kube-system 3y ago
  The fact that copyrights are automatic is a gigantic reason why NDAs aren't a good solution for this. The people who are in the best position to abuse someone's creative privacy are often the same people who won't sign NDAs.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
What if I want privacy in matters that are not copyright able? Clearly copyright is for commercial property, and privacy is an entirely separate matter that should be dealt with by anti-stalking laws, etc.