4 ms·

Copyright is new age nonsense that denies the chain of influence and inspiration that exists between all people. If you can create something sell it. If it can

Copyright is new age nonsense that denies the chain of influence and inspiration that exists between all people. If you can create something sell it. If it can be easily recreated (or stored digitally) then it isn't yours. Bits are not a bug.

CaptainFever 3y ago
And for funding models without copyright, many exist. A few examples are crowdfunding, patronage, commissions and live shows.
themaninthedark 3y ago
That doesn't hold though, especially the part about stored digitally as then every movie and TV show that is streamed would no longer be copyrighted. As for easily recreated, it is not hard for anyone to make a wooden block and then use it to make prints but if you made a wooden block print of Campbells soup cans you would probably face a copyright claim from Andy Warhol depending on the "look" of the print.
alexwebb2 3y ago
If we go that route, then doesn't that remove almost all financial incentive to produce new content that could be digitally stored / copied / recreated? Because as soon as you create it and try to sell it for $1, someone else will recreate it instantly and put it up for $0.50, and so on until the value of all non-physical works is effectively $0 the moment after creation. Feels like that would result in way less human art being made.
- RyanAdamas 3y ago
  If you create a painting someone else reproduces instantly with ease then it would imply the quality was not high enough to command the price. If incentive falls then supply would fall and either find a new equilibrium price or demand would remain and prices would rise. Seems more like quality would matter. Hard copies would matter; perhaps the disc you issue your media on is rated to last 100 years, whereas someone's digital copy can be deleted with a keystroke. Copyright is bullshit in a market of perfect reproducibility.
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  The copies are non-scarce, but the production effort is indeed scarce. That's why alternatives to copyright tend to focus more on funding projects before they are released, such as patronage, commissions and public funding [1]. There's also the comically named "hostage funding" where you have a finished project, but you only release it after a certain funding goal is met. It's worth noting that copyright is rather destructive since it impairs people from building and innovating on previous works [2], so any benefits need to be weighed against that. [1] https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w?si=UzmBasgylpxomUAt https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w?si=UzmBasgylpxomUAt [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html

CaptainFever 3y ago

And for funding models without copyright, many exist. A few examples are crowdfunding, patronage, commissions and live shows.

themaninthedark 3y ago

That doesn't hold though, especially the part about stored digitally as then every movie and TV show that is streamed would no longer be copyrighted. As for easily recreated, it is not hard for anyone to make a wooden block and then use it to make prints but if you made a wooden block print of Campbells soup cans you would probably face a copyright claim from Andy Warhol depending on the "look" of the print.

alexwebb2 3y ago

If we go that route, then doesn't that remove almost all financial incentive to produce new content that could be digitally stored / copied / recreated? Because as soon as you create it and try to sell it for $1, someone else will recreate it instantly and put it up for $0.50, and so on until the value of all non-physical works is effectively $0 the moment after creation. Feels like that would result in way less human art being made.

RyanAdamas 3y ago
If you create a painting someone else reproduces instantly with ease then it would imply the quality was not high enough to command the price. If incentive falls then supply would fall and either find a new equilibrium price or demand would remain and prices would rise. Seems more like quality would matter. Hard copies would matter; perhaps the disc you issue your media on is rated to last 100 years, whereas someone's digital copy can be deleted with a keystroke. Copyright is bullshit in a market of perfect reproducibility.
CaptainFever 3y ago
The copies are non-scarce, but the production effort is indeed scarce. That's why alternatives to copyright tend to focus more on funding projects before they are released, such as patronage, commissions and public funding [1]. There's also the comically named "hostage funding" where you have a finished project, but you only release it after a certain funding goal is met. It's worth noting that copyright is rather destructive since it impairs people from building and innovating on previous works [2], so any benefits need to be weighed against that. [1] https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w?si=UzmBasgylpxomUAt https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w?si=UzmBasgylpxomUAt [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html