4 ms·
Yes, 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 limit
by keiferski 3y ago
Yes, 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.
- sokoloff 3y ago> If there is no copyright, they don't even need to change the name. The absence of copyright does not necessarily mean the absence of trademark. If I want to make O-shaped oat cereal, I can. That doesn’t (and shouldn’t) give me the right to put it in a yellow box and call it Cheerios.
- gedy 3y ago> what's stopping Disney from just outright stealing and outproducing any ideas they find? Isn't that exactly what they did in early years with Snow White, Pinocchio, fairy tales, etc?
- 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.