5 ms·

That is a very dangerous way to approach copyright laws. They are definitely abused by corporations like Disney, infamously so, but abolishing them is absolutel

That is a very dangerous way to approach copyright laws. They are definitely abused by corporations like Disney, infamously so, but abolishing them is absolutely not the answer. Art makers are already struggling en masse, taking away their ability to earn money off their work isn't an answer, especially if it's just to train a predictive text generator.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Counterpoint: there's way too much "art makers", copyright is keeping the quality ceiling down, good content loses monetization game with spam - all while that "predictive text generator" is, for better or worse, pretty much the most magnificent piece of technology invented this century, and - for better or worse - it's likely to become next major shift to economy and life.
- bergen 3y ago
  How do you believe copyright is keeping the quality down in particular? As I see it, the reason is marketability and trying to conform to standards. Making a new Marvel Movie is sure to have a payoff. Making Parasite MIGHT have a higher payoff, but the risk is way higher. Removing copyright might help to get various more spin-offs and reiterations on previous work, which does increase the scope, but taking the ability for makers to profit from their work in a traditional sense, will bring us closer (back) to a time when commissioned artwork was the main art you saw
  - hoseja 3y ago
    Letting "makers" (studios) profit from "their" (stolen by unbalanced contracts) work for unreasonable amounts of time has clearly proven to be a failure while crowd-comissioned spaces (patreon etc) are thriving financially AND artistically.
- numpad0 3y ago
  - HN on social media : The powers are too centralized, future is decentralization, question is how - HN on free software: is good - HN on copyright : WAY TOO MUCH PEASANTS CLAIMING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, RIGHTS THAT ARENT EVEN REAL, ART BE CENTRALIZED FOR MAXIMUM MONOPOLY
  - dwallin 3y ago
    Copyright does very little for individuals. Most benefits from the copyright system are accrued to large corporations.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Most benefits from the copyright system are accrued to large corporations Citation fucking needed. Among those who study copyright and inequality, none suggest abandoning it [1][2]. Within the context of machine learning, one of the only pillars buttressing individuals against multi-trillion dollar corporations is copyright [3]. [1] https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/id/5108/download/pdf/ https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/id/5108... [2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1339714 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1339714 [3] https://sfstandard.com/2023/07/10/cruise-and-waymos-24-7-san-francisco-robotaxi-operations-delayed-by-state-regulator/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/07/10/cruise-and-waymos-24-7-san...
      - ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
        To nitpick, the second article is from 1970, back then a concept such as the Amazon Antitrust Paradox [1] would cause burning at the stake in the legal field. Similarly, we also have an Elsevier Antitrust Paradox, a Nature(.com) Antitrust Paradox, and so on. Just the fact that I cannot freely read an article published 53 years ago is beyond ludicrous. And also, if I pay JSTOR ($19.5/month) and read the 1970 article, do you think the money will go to Stephen Breyer [2], the author? No, 100% of the $19.5/month will go to Ithaka Harbors, parent company of JSTOR [3], that's where the "accrued to large corporations" lies. [1] 2017, https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado..., Lina M. Khan is the chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission since 2021. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer [3] "Ithaka's total revenue was $105 million in 2019, most of it ($79 million) from JSTOR service fees", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaka_Harbors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaka_Harbors
ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
Already copyright laws do not offer protection for writers (see the current [screen]writers strike [1]), visual artists, musicians (see the recent Taylor Swift re-recording debacle [2]), not to speak of the "lower" arts, crafts & merch, where colossi such as H&M and Zara steal art, designs, concepts regularly [3] (not to even mention the sweatshops). Copyright laws, or in fact generally laws, are for the rich and powerful, perhaps even for the corporations, not the individuals, since they paid for them to be so [4], it's just us, individually, the hoi polloi, who are still trapped into believing that there is rhyme or reason to our current system. The joke is that while our system extolls itself as the most efficient system in history, based on competition of equals and free markets (two contradictions in terms contradicting each other), it harbours terrible inefficiencies such as the copyright laws, the patent system, and so on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Writers_Guild_of_America_... [2] https://www.vox.com/culture/22278732/taylor-swift-re-recording-speak-now-enchanted-mine-master-rights-scooter-braun https://www.vox.com/culture/22278732/taylor-swift-re-recordi... [3] https://www.boredpanda.com/zara-stealing-designs-copying-independent-artists-tuesday-bassen https://www.boredpanda.com/zara-stealing-designs-copying-ind... [4] The Power Corporations Have In Changing Laws, https://www.npr.org/2021/04/02/983925056/the-power-corporations-have-in-changing-laws https://www.npr.org/2021/04/02/983925056/the-power-corporati...
- notahacker 3y ago
  Ask someone on the screenwriters' strike if they'd rather copyright was eliminated so they didn't get paid at all...
  - ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
    Most of them already don't get paid, hence the strike [1]. [1] "Writers say they want a living wage as streaming devalues their work even as it demands more of their time.", https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/writers-strike-2023-explained-1234831299 https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/writers-strike-2023-...
    - 3y ago
RugnirViking 3y ago
since when is struggling artist making use of the copyright system. They are protected by it entirely in theory alone, they aint taking someone to court.
tap-snap-or-nap 3y ago
The laws themselves are dangerous and encourages the myth of ideas being akin to somebody's personal property.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Counterpoint: there's way too much "art makers", copyright is keeping the quality ceiling down, good content loses monetization game with spam - all while that "predictive text generator" is, for better or worse, pretty much the most magnificent piece of technology invented this century, and - for better or worse - it's likely to become next major shift to economy and life.

bergen 3y ago
How do you believe copyright is keeping the quality down in particular? As I see it, the reason is marketability and trying to conform to standards. Making a new Marvel Movie is sure to have a payoff. Making Parasite MIGHT have a higher payoff, but the risk is way higher. Removing copyright might help to get various more spin-offs and reiterations on previous work, which does increase the scope, but taking the ability for makers to profit from their work in a traditional sense, will bring us closer (back) to a time when commissioned artwork was the main art you saw
- hoseja 3y ago
  Letting "makers" (studios) profit from "their" (stolen by unbalanced contracts) work for unreasonable amounts of time has clearly proven to be a failure while crowd-comissioned spaces (patreon etc) are thriving financially AND artistically.
numpad0 3y ago
- HN on social media : The powers are too centralized, future is decentralization, question is how - HN on free software: is good - HN on copyright : WAY TOO MUCH PEASANTS CLAIMING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, RIGHTS THAT ARENT EVEN REAL, ART BE CENTRALIZED FOR MAXIMUM MONOPOLY
- dwallin 3y ago
  Copyright does very little for individuals. Most benefits from the copyright system are accrued to large corporations.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Most benefits from the copyright system are accrued to large corporations Citation fucking needed. Among those who study copyright and inequality, none suggest abandoning it [1][2]. Within the context of machine learning, one of the only pillars buttressing individuals against multi-trillion dollar corporations is copyright [3]. [1] https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/id/5108/download/pdf/ https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/id/5108... [2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1339714 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1339714 [3] https://sfstandard.com/2023/07/10/cruise-and-waymos-24-7-san-francisco-robotaxi-operations-delayed-by-state-regulator/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/07/10/cruise-and-waymos-24-7-san...
    - ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
      To nitpick, the second article is from 1970, back then a concept such as the Amazon Antitrust Paradox [1] would cause burning at the stake in the legal field. Similarly, we also have an Elsevier Antitrust Paradox, a Nature(.com) Antitrust Paradox, and so on. Just the fact that I cannot freely read an article published 53 years ago is beyond ludicrous. And also, if I pay JSTOR ($19.5/month) and read the 1970 article, do you think the money will go to Stephen Breyer [2], the author? No, 100% of the $19.5/month will go to Ithaka Harbors, parent company of JSTOR [3], that's where the "accrued to large corporations" lies. [1] 2017, https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado..., Lina M. Khan is the chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission since 2021. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer [3] "Ithaka's total revenue was $105 million in 2019, most of it ($79 million) from JSTOR service fees", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaka_Harbors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaka_Harbors

ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago

Already copyright laws do not offer protection for writers (see the current [screen]writers strike [1]), visual artists, musicians (see the recent Taylor Swift re-recording debacle [2]), not to speak of the "lower" arts, crafts & merch, where colossi such as H&M and Zara steal art, designs, concepts regularly [3] (not to even mention the sweatshops). Copyright laws, or in fact generally laws, are for the rich and powerful, perhaps even for the corporations, not the individuals, since they paid for them to be so [4], it's just us, individually, the hoi polloi, who are still trapped into believing that there is rhyme or reason to our current system. The joke is that while our system extolls itself as the most efficient system in history, based on competition of equals and free markets (two contradictions in terms contradicting each other), it harbours terrible inefficiencies such as the copyright laws, the patent system, and so on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Writers_Guild_of_America_... [2] https://www.vox.com/culture/22278732/taylor-swift-re-recording-speak-now-enchanted-mine-master-rights-scooter-braun https://www.vox.com/culture/22278732/taylor-swift-re-recordi... [3] https://www.boredpanda.com/zara-stealing-designs-copying-independent-artists-tuesday-bassen https://www.boredpanda.com/zara-stealing-designs-copying-ind... [4] The Power Corporations Have In Changing Laws, https://www.npr.org/2021/04/02/983925056/the-power-corporations-have-in-changing-laws https://www.npr.org/2021/04/02/983925056/the-power-corporati...

notahacker 3y ago
Ask someone on the screenwriters' strike if they'd rather copyright was eliminated so they didn't get paid at all...
- ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
  Most of them already don't get paid, hence the strike [1]. [1] "Writers say they want a living wage as streaming devalues their work even as it demands more of their time.", https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/writers-strike-2023-explained-1234831299 https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/writers-strike-2023-...
  - 3y ago

RugnirViking 3y ago

since when is struggling artist making use of the copyright system. They are protected by it entirely in theory alone, they aint taking someone to court.

tap-snap-or-nap 3y ago

The laws themselves are dangerous and encourages the myth of ideas being akin to somebody's personal property.