5 ms·

> if those industries are unviable without copyright protection, they could go away entirely. These creative industries include all of software development, mu

> if those industries are unviable without copyright protection, they could go away entirely. These creative industries include all of software development, music, TV, movies, books, media, art, etc. You do technically solve the problem of copyright by shutting all those down, but I'm not sure it's a solution anybody will vote for. If you can come up with a serious alternative though, which can sustain those creative industries without requiring copyright, now is probably the best moment in all of history to seize the day and make that happen. There's going to be a big shake-up regardless, it's the perfect chance for alternative models. Bear in mind that dropping copyright entirely doesn't just hurt Disney and Sony Music though - with no copyright the GPL and all other open-source licenses are unenforceable, anybody can copy & sell anybody else's art or design without permission, Spotify doesn't have to pay musicians even $0.01 any more, etc etc etc. It's not an easy problem.

Pannoniae 3y ago
I don't think that no one would create new software/music/books/movies/art/etc. without copyright. Humans have done so for millenia before, they still did so in absence of copyright protections. I don't see how this is not a serious alternative - the only major losers would be the middlemen, not the artists themselves.
- thrwayaistartup 3y ago
  > Humans have done so for millenia before This is categorically false for both software and movies. For other media, this ignores the effect of zero-effort copying.
- CodeSgt 3y ago
  Eh, I could definitely see the artists losing. The most obvious scenario that comes to mind for me is, imagine an independent artists launching their (book/film/album/etc) and the same day someone with more resources and experience takes the work and markets it better than the OG author ever could on their own.
  - zb3 3y ago
    It would be great if such "creative" works were simply impossible to monetize. I already don't pay for these and try to find unknown artists / writers who have a job and do stuff simply because they enjoy doing it.
    - CodeSgt 3y ago
      That’s… awful.
      - zb3 3y ago
        What's awful here? This way it's just a social interaction with both sides satisfied, where's the problem? I see a problem today, being spammed with shitty commercial "works" whereas I'd like to see something genuine and not just made for money.
        CodeSgt 3y ago
        If not for the ability to monetize, there would be a small fraction of the total available work out there. From music, to movies, to video games. And for many, the quality we come to enjoy just wouldn’t be possible. Do you think we’d have a Skyrim, or GTA, or equivalent if there weren’t millions to be made to employ thousands of people to make it happen? What about the largest and most influential films and TV shows of the past decade? These things take money to produce. I could see the argument for music, maybe, but even then I don’t think it’d be sustainable. Just because an artist may enjoy working on their art after working 50 hours a week to pay the bills doesn’t mean they should HAVE to if their art is good enough and desired enough to sustain them, thus allowing them to create more and of a higher caliber (in theory).
        zb3 3y ago
        I don't consume any of those, I'm just saying what would be better for me. However, abolishing copyright is not the same as making monetization illegal. My view is that people should be paid for their WORK, and copying something doesn't make the author work more. This'd mean the funds 'd need to be bootstrapped (crowdfunding?) before the work is done, but then it'd be free to distribute it.

Pannoniae 3y ago

I don't think that no one would create new software/music/books/movies/art/etc. without copyright. Humans have done so for millenia before, they still did so in absence of copyright protections. I don't see how this is not a serious alternative - the only major losers would be the middlemen, not the artists themselves.

thrwayaistartup 3y ago
> Humans have done so for millenia before This is categorically false for both software and movies. For other media, this ignores the effect of zero-effort copying.
CodeSgt 3y ago
Eh, I could definitely see the artists losing. The most obvious scenario that comes to mind for me is, imagine an independent artists launching their (book/film/album/etc) and the same day someone with more resources and experience takes the work and markets it better than the OG author ever could on their own.
- zb3 3y ago
  It would be great if such "creative" works were simply impossible to monetize. I already don't pay for these and try to find unknown artists / writers who have a job and do stuff simply because they enjoy doing it.
  - CodeSgt 3y ago
    That’s… awful.
    - zb3 3y ago
      What's awful here? This way it's just a social interaction with both sides satisfied, where's the problem? I see a problem today, being spammed with shitty commercial "works" whereas I'd like to see something genuine and not just made for money.
      - CodeSgt 3y ago
        If not for the ability to monetize, there would be a small fraction of the total available work out there. From music, to movies, to video games. And for many, the quality we come to enjoy just wouldn’t be possible. Do you think we’d have a Skyrim, or GTA, or equivalent if there weren’t millions to be made to employ thousands of people to make it happen? What about the largest and most influential films and TV shows of the past decade? These things take money to produce. I could see the argument for music, maybe, but even then I don’t think it’d be sustainable. Just because an artist may enjoy working on their art after working 50 hours a week to pay the bills doesn’t mean they should HAVE to if their art is good enough and desired enough to sustain them, thus allowing them to create more and of a higher caliber (in theory).
        zb3 3y ago
        I don't consume any of those, I'm just saying what would be better for me. However, abolishing copyright is not the same as making monetization illegal. My view is that people should be paid for their WORK, and copying something doesn't make the author work more. This'd mean the funds 'd need to be bootstrapped (crowdfunding?) before the work is done, but then it'd be free to distribute it.