3 ms·

There is nothing reasonable. Intellectual Property is, to its core, unreasonable.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
To its core? I disagree. To the implementation established through corporate lobbying of media corporation over the last century; yes, I'd very much agree. The core is, people who create useful works deserve to make a living and not simply have the financial benefit of those works go to others who are rich enough to exploit them. I'd be interested if you don't agree with that core, if you could explain why?
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  Every person living deserves a living. Monopoly is not the route we should be taking to achieve that. Copyright only manages to support a select few artists. It does so by making it more difficult to create art in the first place! The overwhelming majority of copyright benefit (in dollars) goes to "others who are rich enough to exploit" the system itself, not to the artists who are in need of "a living". Those absurdly wealthy groups make it more difficult and more expensive for artists to compete with them. The tool they use for anti-competitive behavior is copyright. Copyright is only useful for anti-competitive behavior, because copyright is literally defined as monopoly. --- If we did not have copyright, people would still be free to financially support artists. There would only be two major differences: 1. Artists would not be able to compel people to financially support them. 2. Giant corporations would not be able to compel artists to give them monopoly over their art. Artists would be entirely free to create new art, and to seek direct financial benefit from that art. I argue that the second effect is by far the greater of the two, particularly in respect to artists who need a living wage.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    >The overwhelming majority of copyright benefit (in dollars) goes to "others who are rich enough to exploit" the system // Yes, in the copyright system we _have_ in USA/Europe (probably globally). But fundamentally copyright was birthed out of protecting creators of works (authors of books in the case of Queen Anne's Statute). Capitalism is fundamentally corrupting of every system, but that doesn't mean the "core" of the underlying system was bad -- that is all I argue for here, that a just copyright system that actually encourages sharing of works could exist, modelled on the fundamental core of copyright which is protecting authors/creators from predatory industries and maintaining things such as right of authorship (being acknowledged as author).
bashinator 3y ago
I'm just curious; should I be able to profit from selling high-quality prints of a living artist's paintings that I surreptitiously photographed in a gallery?
- bluGill 3y ago
  We can debate the exact length copyright should be (I favor 25 years), but that is the real question. If the copyright is expired, then you can, if not you cannot. I don't care if the artist is living or dead. A dead artist may have heirs (kids, wife...) that they expected to still be supporting except they happened to die.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  Yes. Your prints are inherently valuable, as is their distribution. To be clear, you should not be able to profit from claiming original authorship of those works: that would be fraud.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
I am not opposed to intellectual property. (And, in fact, create it: I'm a programmer.) The problem with the DMCA is that in practice it's ridiculously lopsided. It's *supposed to be* under penalty of perjury but no harm comes to those who make false claims.

To its core? I disagree. To the implementation established through corporate lobbying of media corporation over the last century; yes, I'd very much agree. The core is, people who create useful works deserve to make a living and not simply have the financial benefit of those works go to others who are rich enough to exploit them. I'd be interested if you don't agree with that core, if you could explain why?

thomastjeffery 3y ago
Every person living deserves a living. Monopoly is not the route we should be taking to achieve that. Copyright only manages to support a select few artists. It does so by making it more difficult to create art in the first place! The overwhelming majority of copyright benefit (in dollars) goes to "others who are rich enough to exploit" the system itself, not to the artists who are in need of "a living". Those absurdly wealthy groups make it more difficult and more expensive for artists to compete with them. The tool they use for anti-competitive behavior is copyright. Copyright is only useful for anti-competitive behavior, because copyright is literally defined as monopoly. --- If we did not have copyright, people would still be free to financially support artists. There would only be two major differences: 1. Artists would not be able to compel people to financially support them. 2. Giant corporations would not be able to compel artists to give them monopoly over their art. Artists would be entirely free to create new art, and to seek direct financial benefit from that art. I argue that the second effect is by far the greater of the two, particularly in respect to artists who need a living wage.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  >The overwhelming majority of copyright benefit (in dollars) goes to "others who are rich enough to exploit" the system // Yes, in the copyright system we _have_ in USA/Europe (probably globally). But fundamentally copyright was birthed out of protecting creators of works (authors of books in the case of Queen Anne's Statute). Capitalism is fundamentally corrupting of every system, but that doesn't mean the "core" of the underlying system was bad -- that is all I argue for here, that a just copyright system that actually encourages sharing of works could exist, modelled on the fundamental core of copyright which is protecting authors/creators from predatory industries and maintaining things such as right of authorship (being acknowledged as author).

bashinator 3y ago

I'm just curious; should I be able to profit from selling high-quality prints of a living artist's paintings that I surreptitiously photographed in a gallery?

bluGill 3y ago
We can debate the exact length copyright should be (I favor 25 years), but that is the real question. If the copyright is expired, then you can, if not you cannot. I don't care if the artist is living or dead. A dead artist may have heirs (kids, wife...) that they expected to still be supporting except they happened to die.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
Yes. Your prints are inherently valuable, as is their distribution. To be clear, you should not be able to profit from claiming original authorship of those works: that would be fraud.

LorenPechtel 3y ago

I am not opposed to intellectual property. (And, in fact, create it: I'm a programmer.) The problem with the DMCA is that in practice it's ridiculously lopsided. It's *supposed to be* under penalty of perjury but no harm comes to those who make false claims.