3 ms·

If someone ran a print shop and printed out my articles into a book called "Collected works by Trey on HN" or something and didn't give me a cent then yeah I'd

by treyd 3y ago

If someone ran a print shop and printed out my articles into a book called "Collected works by Trey on HN" or something and didn't give me a cent then yeah I'd be thrilled, because it's a validation of my work. I already published the articles, they're doing all the work to put them into print, what right do I really have to claim part of the sales? But if they claimed that they wrote the content then they would be defrauding their customers, since saying they wrote them would just be lying. You don't need intellectual property for fraud (as in "lying for material gain") to exist and be bad. At the very least it would be dishonest academically speaking and they should be criticized for it.

mistrial9 3y ago
you would throw out hundreds of years of copyright law on a whim. This is economic suicide for independent creatives. The most tragic part of this is that creatives themselves, immersed in creativity, see no rhyme or reason to stop the flow. Over time, those that grow old or weak are discarded with no rights to their own work. Yes, it is that bad.
- treyd 3y ago
  Have you listened to artists and creatives talk about copyright recently? Especially ones that publish on newer, digital distribution platforms like YouTube? There's numerous more thorough critiques of copyright law and calls to abolish it from across the political spectrum. You're mischaracterizing me by suggesting that it's "economic suicide", as I said in my original comment in this thread: > But we shouldn't be responding to that by clinging harder to schemes that have outlived their usefulness, we should be developing new models for funding production. Sure it would be disruptive if we snapped our fingers and said "no more IP starting tomorrow", there should be a gradual phasing out of these unfair protections and effort put into sustainable pro-creative models.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    YouTube where the user account can be terminated without notice, and with no recourse?
    - treyd 3y ago
      That's bad but also mostly unrelated to the main point I'm making about copyright. If anything it's supportive since part of the risk of account deletion/restriction is running afowl of their content ID system, which only exists because of strongarm corporate copyright holders.

by treyd 3y ago

mistrial9 3y ago

you would throw out hundreds of years of copyright law on a whim. This is economic suicide for independent creatives. The most tragic part of this is that creatives themselves, immersed in creativity, see no rhyme or reason to stop the flow. Over time, those that grow old or weak are discarded with no rights to their own work. Yes, it is that bad.

treyd 3y ago
Have you listened to artists and creatives talk about copyright recently? Especially ones that publish on newer, digital distribution platforms like YouTube? There's numerous more thorough critiques of copyright law and calls to abolish it from across the political spectrum. You're mischaracterizing me by suggesting that it's "economic suicide", as I said in my original comment in this thread: > But we shouldn't be responding to that by clinging harder to schemes that have outlived their usefulness, we should be developing new models for funding production. Sure it would be disruptive if we snapped our fingers and said "no more IP starting tomorrow", there should be a gradual phasing out of these unfair protections and effort put into sustainable pro-creative models.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  YouTube where the user account can be terminated without notice, and with no recourse?
  - treyd 3y ago
    That's bad but also mostly unrelated to the main point I'm making about copyright. If anything it's supportive since part of the risk of account deletion/restriction is running afowl of their content ID system, which only exists because of strongarm corporate copyright holders.