8 ms·
As a hobby content creator, I absolutely disagree. My content is mine, if someone else wants to use it for whatever purposes, that party has to ask for, and get
by hef19898 3y ago
As a hobby content creator, I absolutely disagree. My content is mine, if someone else wants to use it for whatever purposes, that party has to ask for, and get permission, to do so. Which I might or might not give.
I absolutely do not want any AI model to use my stuff as training data, to be used on a website or for advertizing. You want to make money off my stuff, you pay.
- keiferski 3y agoYes, I find the anti-copyright position to be quite anti-creator and pro corporation that can afford to outspend competitors on marketing. In a world with limited copyright laws, I see no reason why Disney/OpenAI/Google/etc. wouldn't just end up functionally owning anything that a less well-funded person creates.
- lifthrasiir 3y agoThe problem is that there are also corporations behind copyright as well. In fact, a more constructive way to see this might be that there are two groups of corporations---say, traditional media conglomerates for copyright vs. tech megacorporations against copyright---and creators and consumers are rather stranded between them.
- Adverblessly 3y agoWith no copyright law, how would they own anything? If anything, I'd expect the funding will go to those who can sustain themselves on things like Patreon and Kickstarter, where money is provided before the work is created, making the copyright protection irrelevant. And while the big corporations will get to own those Patreons and Kickstarters, hopefully there will be enough competition to keep their greed in check. (Also, maybe more people will learn to tip for content even when they receive it for free)
- keiferski 3y agoThat's why I wrote "functionally own." They'd own the distribution, eyeballs, and sales of merchandise. Without copyright laws, large media corporations have the budget and institutional know-how to simply copy and out-market any new creations that are made by less well-funded people. Good luck making a new kids cartoon if Disney is going to copy it and put billions of marketing dollars promoting it. It would be a death sentence to any smaller creator and services like Patreon would probably not even exist.
- Adverblessly 3y agoCopyright law does not stop large media corporations from copying because the original work itself is not what they need. Which would be more popular: Fortnite or "PUBG - Epic's Edition"? Do you really envision a small creator publishing a new kids cartoon and then Disney swooping in and... Creating a 2nd season for it and making money off of it?
- keiferski 3y agoIf there are no copyright laws, what's stopping Disney from just outright stealing and outproducing any ideas they find? If I'm a small time creator and make a new kids cartoon series with an original concept, what's stopping Disney from just outright publishing their own version, marketing it 100x more than I am capable of doing, and then selling merchandise for it? If there is no copyright, they don't even need to change the name.
- Fargren 3y agoLet's explore this scenario, I think it is interesting. You are a small time creator and make a new kids cartoon series with an original concept. Regardless of Disney, how did you monetize it? Did you get commissioned to make it? Then you are already paid and Disney getting profit doesn't affect you. Did you make merchandise? Then I guess Disney's and Hasbro competes with you, but also they advertise for you, so maybe it's a wash? Do you stream it for free and get money from ads? I guess that model is kind of screwed.
- 3y ago
- phreeza 3y agoIt's interesting how this has completely flipped from the situation in the past decades where copyright enforcement was the thing done by big corporations with big budgets and anti-DRM was the underdog thing. To be clear I'm not disagreeing with you but I think it does show that the underlying issue is maybe deeper than copyright itself and goes more in the direction of class relationships in a capitalist society.
- ushtaritk421 3y agoThe fact that Disney fights viciously for the extension of copyright periods goes against your assumption.
- keiferski 3y agoNo, I think that Disney has determined that there are too many corporate interests at stake for a radical political change to occur regarding copyrights, and therefore they want to maintain the status quo and not lose their Mickey Mouse cash cow. If it were legal to simply copy ideas from anyone without caring about copyrights, I seriously doubt they'd have any issues with doing so.
- alpaca128 3y agoNo, both extremes are bad. Of course Disney would love endless exclusive rights on all their IP, but if copyright is too weak they can also just copy small creators without negative consequences. Disney wouldn't lose much if a small artist sells a few products on Etsy but could crowdsource all their new ideas for free.
- tzs 3y agoThey've been around just over 100 years and did that once (in the US...I don't know about in the rest of the world).
- jalapenos 3y agoOpposite. Only a big corporation has the resources to sue everyone. Creators are never going to do that. The anti-copyright position is grounded in the fact it's an artificial tort with no basis in natural law. In fact, contrary to it. We are apes, and we ape.
- 627467 3y ago1. Prove it's your content 2. Prove I've used your content 3. Come collect your fee on my jurisdiction
- nonrandomstring 3y agoIronically AI will make all of those things trivial and instantaneous, including automatically dispatching takedown or claims notices.
- dagw 3y agoWill you make these steps as easy, fair and painless as possible, or will throw up as many barriers as possible so as to attempt to bankrupt any small creator trying to collect?
- jalapenos 3y agoNot really a creator outside your own head if you can't make a living off it by freemium.
- 627467 3y ago"small creators" it's ridiculous to claim that "small creators" are the ones benefiting from the current implementation of "moral rights". Walt Disney started when copyright laws were much more lax. Then Disney Corp lobbied to fortify a moat around itself and since then: where are other Walt Disney's?
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>Then Disney Corp lobbied to fortify a moat around itself and since then: where are other Walt Disney's? they moved to tech and become trillionarires instead of billionaires, I guess. I know we romantacize old Disney, but even some times in the 70's and 80's they were barely pulling it together. Art has always operated on thin margins (which is exactly why Disney's biggest markets isn't entertainment. But that's a whole other rabbit hole). ---- but to answer your question more directly: depends on your scale. a few (I literally mean "can count the number on your hands") small creators became billionaires over their work, a handful became millionaires but didn't try to expand it into some corporation. others live a modest life in the solid upper middle class. Very few people are trying to be corporations, especially artists. the skillsets needed to be a business vs. an artist are almost orthogonal.
- niemandhier 3y agoYou will never be able to enforce your claim against big corps, the best you can hope for is to be part of a bundled lawsuit. In that case the org handling the case will get millions while you end up with a few dollars.
- dagw 3y agoYou will never be able to enforce your claim against big corps How is that relevant? Many 'wrong' things happen every day, and most will go unpunished. That has no bearing on the 'wrongness' of the act. If you believe the copyright is a moral right, then your inability to enforce it, or large companies blatant disregards for your rights, doesn't make it copyright infringement any more OK.
- izacus 3y agoWell, yeah, if course you disagree. I also think every one of millions of users of my software should pay me 100$ a month until they die and then their children should take over. Carpenters would also agree that paying them rent for 200 years for each table they build would be an amazing idea. But maybe the opinions of rent seekers don't always result in the best for economy and society.
- rizky05 3y ago[dead]
- oneplane 3y agoBy that logic, nobody should own anything, or owners should not be allowed to set the rules about the things they own and on what terms they can share or transfer that ownership?
- ubercow13 3y agoNo, that's just the opposite extreme.
- jprete 3y agoIt's not rent-seeking to want to charge for one's own work through copyright.
- izacus 3y agoIt absolutely is if they want to do that for 90 years instead of some more reasonable time. Noone is disputing the right to charge money for creative works.
- jprete 3y agoThe relevant quote from the great-grandpost: "As a hobby content creator, I absolutely disagree. My content is mine, if someone else wants to use it for whatever purposes, that party has to ask for, and get permission, to do so. Which I might or might not give." Your response isn't addressing what my response was addressing.
- jalapenos 3y agoSo basically, you want to elevate your playground "stop copying me!" to a tort.
- ben_w 3y agoIt already is, from what actual paid lawyers have told me. (They didn't use the word "tort", but the definition matches what they described in other terms).
- jalapenos 3y agoYeah it's a tort by statute, not by common law. If someone whines "stop copying me!" the correct response is to laugh at how immature they are, not award them damages. The statutes unnaturally reward the already rich, not the upstart trying to make their name known.
- hilbert42 3y ago"My content is mine" How much of your education and upbringing did you get for free? You were brought up and educated by society to be in the fortunate position of being a content creator. You are now suggesting that you owe nothing back to society in return.
- andrepd 3y agoTop post right here. It's a shame that the very concept of a social contract has fallen so much out of favour in our individualistic and aggressively capitalist society. The truth is everyone who has a business or "creates content" or does any economic activity owes it (to themselves, but also) to the society they are inserted in: be it material stuff like roads to carry your products and an affluent and secure population to buy it, or immaterial stuff like, oh I don't know, the collective achievement of Humanity so far on whose shoulders we all stand.
- okr 3y ago"Yeah, the roads we built with your machines, you have to pay us that we use them so that our work got easier by your invention, because, we educated you!!" (says the slave owner)
- nirvdrum 3y agoPresumably the content creators are paying taxes just like the rest of us. Many almost certainly improve society in other ways.
- w4ffl35 3y ago> Presumably the content creators are paying taxes just like the rest of us Correct. This content creator has also been a software engineer for 20 years. Paid a lot of taxes. Not sure why I'm supposed to owe anything to anyone.
- w4ffl35 3y ago> It's a shame For who?
- csomar 3y agoOn the other hand, your content is just a series of random keystrokes. So on a long timeline, someone else is bound to make the same content as you, by his own. What makes you claim ownership to some random keystrokes?
- hef19898 3y agoThe creative effort I put into making it before the random monkey theory kicks in? Same reason I expect a salary for my professional work. And I am 86.3% sure you don't work for free neither.
- oldandtired 3y agoI have some questions for you to think about: You have said above that : > My content is mine Okay. So how do you define your content? If you write something, you are using an alphabet that others have over a long period of developed. You use combinations of alphabetic characters to form words that have also been developed over time by others. You use combinations of words in particular ways that are semantically meaningful because of the development of that semantics over time by others. If you draw something, you again are using form and structure that is comprehensible because such things have been developed by others before you over long periods of time. Any ideas you have are based on what has been shown to you by others and these ideas are a part of the collective intelligence of societies. So, if you expect others to > ask for, and get permission, to do so Have you done so yourself? There is an old old saying that there is nothing new under the sun. All to often, people seem to claim for themselves a privilege that they will not allow others to utilise. My wife is an artist (in various areas) and people are willing to pay her for some of her works because they like her renditions. Yet, all of her art is based on what she has seen in the world around her. I love her handiwork, but none of it is solely hers. It is based on what has gone before her. An addendum: If people think your stuff is worth something and they want you to create it for them then they will pay you what they think it is worth and not what you think it is worth.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoThat's fine, keep your content. Once you distribute it and ask the state to control people's ongoing sharing of that content though, then we ('we the people') are not going to be so keen as you to lock up your content as we gain little from such laws. I support your right not to share your creations.
- nirvdrum 3y agoI gain a lot from such laws. It helps stimulate the arts. Without the ability to earn money from creations, that will leave the arts to a patron model or as the purview of the already wealthy. Given the collective disdain for anyone pursuing a liberal arts education, I don’t see the patron model resurrecting en masse. I don’t feel entitled to the work output of anyone for anything. I’d much rather give creators a chance to become self-sufficient than live with the alternative. There I see only bland corporate cash grabs and a further shift to subscription-based access to any content. To be sure, we already have some of that. But, we also have artistic output from others that wouldn’t be able to subsist without the promise of protection afforded by copyright.
- hef19898 3y agoI don't share much, true. And I din't ask the state to intervene. I expect the state to provide the legal framework for me to intervene if I choose so. And guess what, the states and nations did: copyright law, patents, trademarks...
- okr 3y agoGood luck! Ppl love their entitlement to free stuff. If they have to pay, they rather pirate and see it as a moral obligation to do so!
- johnnyanmac 3y agothat's the weird part for me. I'm not some moral angel who's never pirated, but I don't wear it as a badge of honor. Sometimes I needed a horribly expensive textbook, other-times I was just greedy and did it because I can. IDK when the internet suddenly shifted from walking in the shadows to pretending they are Robin Hood for their brave easy downloads over evil billion dollar corporations.
- cornholio 3y agoThe point is not that anybody should be able to ignore copyright. We live in a society where we have established a social contract and fleshed it out in the form of laws, and this society will not function if everyone can just pick and choose the laws they want to respect. So if we chose to drive on the right side it would be irresponsible and quite immoral - in a consequentialist understanding - for someone to suddenly start driving on the other side of the road. But the point is, in the absolute, there is nothing morally wrong with either choice, different countries drive on different sides and both models are valid. In the same way, copyright is just a public policy choice that should be judged by its practical consequences, not an inalienable human right. The distinction is important, for example, when discussing the duration of copyright, and especially absurd extensions that could not have possibly induced any creative behavior in the long distant past, so are very bad policy choices.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- greenie_beans 3y agocan't wait to publish my book for sale on gumroad with a link to a free download on libgen
- Levitz 3y ago>As a hobby content creator, I absolutely disagree. My content is mine It is yours as in, it's your property (like your car). It's not yours as in, derived entirely from you (like your hand). That's the thing. The generation of copyrightable material can't exist in a vacuum, I can't even tell if your works are music, video, written or what else, but I know for a fact that you can't produce them if you don't take in a whole lot of stuff from society in the first place, of course morality points to giving back to the community. Public domain is not charity, it's due diligence. But we agree that the public can probably get an even better deal if it allows for monetization of those works, as that will promote their generation. That's what copyright is. That's why it's just a monetization scheme.
- hef19898 3y agoAnd rightly so, because people need ways to make a living of their work. I live of my salary, a full-time artist lives of his work. This has to be protected. People not getting this, should try working without a salary, aka being adequatly reimboursed for their work.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- barnabee 3y agoWhy is it “yours”? Why is there any innate right to control what happens to information once someone knows it?
- whycome 3y agoYou didn't create in a vacuum out of nowhere. You build upon shared language we all have rights to. An education system we paid for. Others created the music/art/writing/etc that you learned from and developed your own works.
- hef19898 3y agoSo you are entitled to all my work, reproduce it, sell it, profit from it? Is that what you mean? Because as inspiration, you'd be more than welcome!