7 ms·

> suddenly everyone's a copyright lawyer Roll back 20+ years ago on Slashdot and you'll see the exact same thing. Copyright has been a hot button issue on the

> suddenly everyone's a copyright lawyer Roll back 20+ years ago on Slashdot and you'll see the exact same thing. Copyright has been a hot button issue on the internet for decades. People end up thinking (rightly or wrongly) that they understand it without being a lawyer.

Teever 3y ago
One of my biggest gripes is a somewhat adjacent issue where everyone thinks they're an American copyright lawyer and that American copyright law is universal. It's very possible that the example provided above is an example of fair use in some country, and that the website offering that service could be hosted there.
whoknowsidont 3y ago
> that they understand it without being a lawyer. Quite literally, not even the lawyers or courts understand it. This is very much a "learn as you go" exercise for humanity in general at this point in time.
- Mattbrown7531 3y ago
  It seems like everything in tech is in the learn as you go phase. Everything is changing so rapidly that there can’t be experts. Just people that are able to adapt quickly. I only see this phenomenon speeding up. Strange times.
Vicinity9635 3y ago
Legality aside I think copyright of digital things in the digital age is a net negative to humanity.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Completely agree. Copyright should be abolished. All intellectual work is information, information is just bits and bits are just numbers. It's quite simply delusional to believe you can own numbers in the 21st century, the age of information and ubiquitous globally networked pocket supercomputers. This is just a felony contempt of business model issue. Computers invalidated their business models and they're doing everything they possibly can to hang on for dear life. Society needs to move on already.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    This goes too far. Digital media are not only long series of numbers. They are often difficult-to-create expressions in image, video, and even interactive forms; regardless of their serialization format. Books are just strings of letters, yet copyright has still been useful to increase the volume and utility of books. All that said, I do find the life+70y an absurdly long time.
  - blehn 3y ago
    That seems like a great way to destroy what is left of art as we know it. Anna Karenina is just numbers. In The Mood For Love is just numbers. Right. What do you propose is the business model for artists in the absence of copyright?
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      I propose getting paid before doing the work for the actual labor of creation. Crowdfunding, patronage, comissions, sponsorships all seem like ethical ways to get things done sustainably. That way creators get paid before they work, not after. We must strengthen these business models that don't depend on artificial scarcity because this number selling nonsense was over the second computers were invented. It's as dumb as asserting that you need permission to use memcpy or the mov CPU instruction.
      - blehn 3y ago
        How do you know what the value of the art will be before it's created? Guns N' Roses is a top 40 artist on Spotify nearly 35 years after producing an album. Should they not have been paid after 1991? If you argue that they were a popular band and therefore should have been paid accordingly up front, well what about their debut record, which sold 30 million copies? How would you predict that value before its creation (or even after)? If you're saying that only the labor has value, and all labor is valued equally, that sounds sort of like marxism, which could be fine, but it's hard to say how well artists would be supported in that case. In the US, the original copyright length was 14 years, and then 28, and eventually the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. I think the intent of the law is economically justified, but the current length is outrageous.
bomewish 3y ago
This seems a bit disingenuous. Lawyers DISAGREE on this stuff (as we will see in this case) and a court will decide the reality by fiat.

Teever 3y ago

One of my biggest gripes is a somewhat adjacent issue where everyone thinks they're an American copyright lawyer and that American copyright law is universal. It's very possible that the example provided above is an example of fair use in some country, and that the website offering that service could be hosted there.

whoknowsidont 3y ago

> that they understand it without being a lawyer. Quite literally, not even the lawyers or courts understand it. This is very much a "learn as you go" exercise for humanity in general at this point in time.

Mattbrown7531 3y ago
It seems like everything in tech is in the learn as you go phase. Everything is changing so rapidly that there can’t be experts. Just people that are able to adapt quickly. I only see this phenomenon speeding up. Strange times.

Vicinity9635 3y ago

Legality aside I think copyright of digital things in the digital age is a net negative to humanity.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
Completely agree. Copyright should be abolished. All intellectual work is information, information is just bits and bits are just numbers. It's quite simply delusional to believe you can own numbers in the 21st century, the age of information and ubiquitous globally networked pocket supercomputers. This is just a felony contempt of business model issue. Computers invalidated their business models and they're doing everything they possibly can to hang on for dear life. Society needs to move on already.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  This goes too far. Digital media are not only long series of numbers. They are often difficult-to-create expressions in image, video, and even interactive forms; regardless of their serialization format. Books are just strings of letters, yet copyright has still been useful to increase the volume and utility of books. All that said, I do find the life+70y an absurdly long time.
- blehn 3y ago
  That seems like a great way to destroy what is left of art as we know it. Anna Karenina is just numbers. In The Mood For Love is just numbers. Right. What do you propose is the business model for artists in the absence of copyright?
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    I propose getting paid before doing the work for the actual labor of creation. Crowdfunding, patronage, comissions, sponsorships all seem like ethical ways to get things done sustainably. That way creators get paid before they work, not after. We must strengthen these business models that don't depend on artificial scarcity because this number selling nonsense was over the second computers were invented. It's as dumb as asserting that you need permission to use memcpy or the mov CPU instruction.
    - blehn 3y ago
      How do you know what the value of the art will be before it's created? Guns N' Roses is a top 40 artist on Spotify nearly 35 years after producing an album. Should they not have been paid after 1991? If you argue that they were a popular band and therefore should have been paid accordingly up front, well what about their debut record, which sold 30 million copies? How would you predict that value before its creation (or even after)? If you're saying that only the labor has value, and all labor is valued equally, that sounds sort of like marxism, which could be fine, but it's hard to say how well artists would be supported in that case. In the US, the original copyright length was 14 years, and then 28, and eventually the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. I think the intent of the law is economically justified, but the current length is outrageous.

bomewish 3y ago

This seems a bit disingenuous. Lawyers DISAGREE on this stuff (as we will see in this case) and a court will decide the reality by fiat.