5 ms·
Copyright in its current form needs to die. It doesn't protect the artist, it protects their publishers and those who benefit from the sweat of their brow after
by ProxCoques 3y ago
Copyright in its current form needs to die. It doesn't protect the artist, it protects their publishers and those who benefit from the sweat of their brow after the artist is dead. Protect works for 7 years renewable for 7 and no more.
- telesilla 3y ago7 years isn't realistic in the case of many authors and artists whose work becomes more valuable after time on the market, awards given as they mature etc.
- kemotep 3y agoAdditionally if your concern is that artists and authors aren’t being paid, a 14 year copyright term is nothing. A corporation would just contract you to make a work, complete whatever minimum release is necessary to get copyright, then wait until it’s public domain to wide release a remastered version that they no longer have to pay royalties on since it is public domain. Despite how many negatives the current copyright regime has, having to wait 70 years after the death of the author is far too long of a timeframe for that strategy to play out.
- surgical_fire 3y ago> A corporation would just contract you to make a work In that case, by definition, the artist was paid.
- kemotep 3y agoThe last round of strikes by the writers and actors unions were about royalties. Being paid for a spec or a per diem while making the movie can be peanuts. Big name actors and writers make percentages on the backend.
- ProxCoques 3y agoI'm not concerned about that. And if I was, why should artists be treated differently to anyone else who chooses to charge for the product of their efforts? Copyright didn't exist before 1710. Art sure did though. A protection of 7 years seems fine by that measure. Go make some more art after that expires. Or even before!
- kemotep 3y agoWell if I can get your art for free after a few years of waiting why would I ever pay? Shortening copyright so much has secondary effects.
- ProxCoques 3y agoBy secondary effects, do you mean artists would cease to create art? If so, then artists living in the many hundreds of years before copyright existed in law would disagree. Or do you mean there isn't enough music, or film or literature, etc. in the world? Spotify doesn't have an input problem as far as I know.
- kemotep 3y agoNo the secondary effects would be people no longer having to pay for art. Including corporations like Spotify and Netflix. Artists would still make art but would have to either have patronage or find an alternative income source to make a living.
- tanseydavid 3y ago>> Copyright didn't exist before 1710. Art sure did though. A protection of 7 years seems fine by that measure. This seems utterly arbitrary. I fail to understand your logic here.
- ProxCoques 3y agoPlease accept my apologies. I mean that the ostensible reason for copyright is to protect and thereby incentivise the production of artistic work. By extension, without copyright, artists would not create anything. But artistic work existed before copyright was created in law in 1710. Ergo, protection of 7 years would seem more than generous when, for example, builders are not paid every time somebody enters their buildings, or lawyers are not paid every time somebody reads the contracts they wrote.
- salawat 3y agoEasy fix: corporations can't hold IP. Only people can. There. Fix't.
- ProxCoques 3y agoIf I install the plumbing in your house, you don't pay me every time you have a shower. I'm willing to concede an artist might be "better" than a plumber (commercially), but if copyright is intended to incentivise production of art, then 7 years seems perfectly reasonable time to let a work accrue some money before it goes into the public domain. 7+7 was in fact how copyright first existed.
- auggierose 3y agoReading comments like yours convinces me that open sourcing my stuff wouldn't be a good idea. I very much like the idea that I own what I created. At least as long as owning stuff is how society works.
- ProxCoques 3y agoYes! That worked for Linus Torvalds! Oh, wait... https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/linus-torvalds-net-worth/ https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/linus-...
- auggierose 3y ago50 Million for the most successful open-source project(s) of all time? That is peanuts. If you want to make money, open-sourcing your work seems to be a very hard way of doing so.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoWhat is the value of all the software I've been able to use all my life for free? What is the value of the fact that all of that software behaved sanely and in my interests at all times? Both are basically incalculable. There is more than dollars to consider in the equation, and there are even many dollars too, merely indirectly.
- tanseydavid 3y agoPlumber does job work based on agreed price in advance and gets paid for every job. The artist has no sort of guarantee of income from any particular piece of work or really even subsistence from their entire life's output of work. I think most people would agree that the physical trades and the arts are not well-suited for comparisons. They are just fundamentally too different.
- snapplebobapple 3y agoThats not really relevant unless you think it will significantly reduce high quality output, which i dont think it will. Copyright is a perversion of the free market as a trade off to incent fixed cost investment (i.e. creating content) in an industry with zero marginal cost (i.e distribution is so close to free it might as well be thought of as free). The goal should be to pervert the free market as little as possible because raising the distribution price above zero very clearly causes deadweight loss to society and the longer the copyright term the more tenuous the claim of increased productiin and venefit to society is relative to the large deadweight loss it causes.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoI am a researcher and new technology developer in materials science and those inventions are only protectable for 20 years.
- ProxCoques 3y agoI believe you are referring to patents. We're talking about copyright though, which is a different thing really - but related I suppose.
- lewhoo 3y ago> Copyright in its current form needs to die. It doesn't protect the artist, it protects their publishers Then it isn't the copyright at fault here but the agreement between the artist/author and publisher. Artists are famously forced to make bad deals when they don't have any leverage.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y agoSoftware copyright needs to die? No more software licenses?
- ProxCoques 3y agoContract trumps copyright - it's a whole different thing.
- snapplebobapple 3y agoAgree but also disagree on the terms. Make the renewal fee exponponential (i.e first 10 year term is included second term to n terms renewal costs 100^n, which would make the renewals cost 10k,1mm,100mm,10b, etc.) That would put the vast majority of content into the public domain after the first term and let the amazing stuff pay the author longer but not much longer.