10 ms·
Agreed on all points, the tweet feels like an allergic reaction to what copyright has morphed into, which is a tool for big corporations to extract money from e
by loupol 3y ago
Agreed on all points, the tweet feels like an allergic reaction to what copyright has morphed into, which is a tool for big corporations to extract money from existing IP for an insanely long duration.
But it's important to remember that no copyright at all would hurt small and medium creators immensely. Big corps could just pick things that are trending up, rip them off instantly and scale their ripoff much better thanks to their great workforce and marketing reach. That would create a big disincentive for independent creation of IP.
Like you, I would just prefer if copyright was kept in place but its duration decreased drastically compared to now. It doesn't seem likely given the lobbying strength of the corporations that benefit from the current situation sadly.
- LocalH 3y agoThe DMCA has also been abused far past its original intentions. It was basically originally intended to stop people copying DVDs. Now it's used to protect these asinine little "digital locks" inside of everything that prevents independent repair by pairing parts using cryptographic exchanges.
- myaccountonhn 3y agoThat’s what they already do today. OpenAI is an obvious example in our industry but another one is where companies steal clothing designs from indigenous communities all over America. These people can not really defend or assert themselves in US copyright system, so US companies just engage in full on resource extraction without any compensation.
- sveitly 3y agoNew or traditional stuff? Copyright shouldn't be how you defend your traditional stuff. It's more something for the Protected Designation of Origin / PDO
- chrismcb 3y agoClothing design is difficult to copyright. I'm pretty sure just about anyone can defend themselves in the US copyright system. Sure it becomes difficult when you are a small fry (whether indigenous or not) against a big fish, but it can be done.
- sharperguy 3y agoAs a consumer why would I pay spotify $15 a month for ripped off content that doesn't even go to the artist, when I can just paypal my favourite artists $5 now and again, giving them infinitely more revenue from me than spotify does even now, while I torrent/share/sample/remix/cover their entire collection?
- sojuz151 3y agoFor convince? There is a single app with all the music, recommendations, and everything. Also, Spotify would be far cheaper. Most people would just use the app with the biggest catalogue, and not a single dime would go to the artists.
- iwontberude 3y agoUnfortunate not convince
- sharperguy 3y agoCurrently due to copyright enforcement, alternative distribution methods such as torrenting are being made as inconvenient as possible to use. If legal enforcement was relaxed, there would quite quickly be some really nice convenient apps and probably a healthy level of competition and interoperability.
- chrismcb 3y agoYou can do that... But it isn't easy, for you nor for the artist.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>why would I pay spotify $15 a month for ripped off content that doesn't even go to the artist because if you listen to more than 3 artists, the ripoffs are cheaper. And as is, Spotify has original music but barely pays the artist. Sad fact is that very few people care about who is behind the art they consume. Maybe they care about celebrity gossip, but that's it. >while I torrent/share/sample/remix/cover their entire collection? under this theoretical system, the 90-9-1 rule applies. Very few people will bother producing their own music, so the worries of pirating is way bigger than non-corporations remixing/covering
- posix86 3y agoNot just small, also big companies. Why spent billions of dollars researching a new technology when, as soon as you figure it out, someone else copies it for a millionth of the cost? The dominant strategy will be just to wait for others, which might slow progress a lot.
- LtWorf 3y agoCopyright and patents aren't the same at all.
- kasey_junk 3y agoBut they protect creators in the same sorts of ways.
- goodpoint 3y agoNo, they were supposed to protect creators. Now they protect big corps and harm small ones and people.
- kasey_junk 3y agoI don’t know how you can hold the position that copyrights do that but patents don’t.
- goodpoint 3y agoI never said that and I don't. Both copyrights and patents are being weaponized by big players.
- chrismcb 3y agoI'm not sure how they (copyrights? Patents?) Harm small ones and people? For copyrights it works be nice to get some of our culture sooner, but I don't think it harms us. Same for patents. You can make an argument that both should be shorter. I would also accept that software patents shouldn't exist)I think they are definitely rubber stamped to much) but how is the small creator harmed?
- dventimi 3y agoHang on. How would there even be big corporations to hurt small and medium-sized creators, without copyright?
- User23 3y agoTrade secrets can exist without any supporting legislation.
- dventimi 3y agoTrade secrets are practically impossible to maintain without supporting legislation.
- chrismcb 3y agoThis seems like an odd comment. Yes there is law that protects trade secrets. But you still need to keep the secret a secret. If the secret gets out, it is no longer a trade secret.
- dventimi 3y agoThe point is that it's difficult to become a big corporation without a monopoly, and it's difficult to maintain a monopoly without government help through patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Trade secrets--which have got nothing to do with with patents, copyrights, and trademarks and I should have just said has much--are another way to maintain a monopoly without government help, but trade secrets themselves are difficult to maintain if the secret gets out, and it almost always gets out.
- GavinMcG 3y agoBut copyright doesn’t deal with secrets. Just the opposite: it gives control over something that one has made public and attaches upon publication.
- User23 3y ago
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoIt is currently so pro-big business, I would not be surprised if a modern 'free' market economy Republican, would think the original arguments to create copywrite, sound socialist.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoYou'll never win against Big Business while you're still stuck in the half century obsolete paradigm of the Democrats not being a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business Inc just like that Republicans are.
- naasking 3y ago> But it's important to remember that no copyright at all would hurt small and medium creators immensely. Big corps could just pick things that are trending up, rip them off instantly and scale their ripoff much better thanks to their great workforce and marketing reach The big assumption in this argument is that large corporations that depend on copyright would still exist, but it seems pretty clear that they would not. If copyright didn't exist, then there would be nothing for them to monetize. The first broadcast, distribution or performance of a work could recorded/copied and redistributed with no penalty, so large corporations are just as disadvantaged as small players. How do you see large corporations forming and perpetuating themselves in order to exploit these smaller players?
- Centigonal 3y agoH&M, Shein, etc are not IP-based organizations - their value comes from their massive and highly efficient production, supplychain, and distribution networks. They steal or dupe many of their designs, usually from smaller creators, designers, and boutiques. A no copyright environment would benefit businesses like this.
- naasking 3y agoSure, and benefit all of us in turn given the lower costs for nice clothing due to economies of scale. That's ostensibly the point of copyright, no? To benefit society by advancing useful arts and sciences. So boutique designers that can charge high prices due to artificial scarcity would not be a thing. If there are no more boutique designers, then these firms will have to commission designers themselves, or we rely on open source design work, eg. students who are learning design, enthusiasts, and so on. I'm not really seeing a real downside here. Yes, things would be different, but would they be worse? I don't think so.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>hat's ostensibly the point of copyright, no? To benefit society by advancing useful arts and sciences. Do people forget that copyright was made to protect the investor first, and then to progress society second? If the inventor has no incentive to invent, you can't benefit and advance society off their shoulders. So the inventor gets their due payment, then after benefiting for most their life or so (14 + 14, in a time where life expectancy was 40 years old), release to the public around the time that person is retired or dead. The downside is that the spark would never come in a lot of places. You can't lower the cost of what doesn't exist.
- fsflover 3y ago> But it's important to remember that no copyright at all would hurt small and medium creators immensely. This is false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15309950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15309950
- chrismcb 3y agoPiracy isn't what the OP is talking about (at least I don't think they are) what they mean is a bigger business will come and steal the small/medium content. Since they are bigger they can do a better job of selling the content than the small/medium person.
- dventimi 3y agoNo, they can't do a better job of selling it, not if the corporation has shareholders to look after.
- soerxpso 3y ago> But it's important to remember that no copyright at all would hurt small and medium creators immensely. This doesn't refute the tweet. You're just saying you want a monetization strategy that enables an information business model that you like (small/medium creators) instead of one that you don't like. It's still not a moral right, and your belief that the law should help artists is not innately superior to a belief that the law should help Disney or that the law should help corn farmers. Additionally, it's arguable that copyright is needed for small/medium creators to succeed. Most successful independent creators monetize through patreon or personal commissions, neither of which are actually hindered by lack of copyright.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agonowhere in that commenters post did they mention preference, they made an observation. You're the one trying to apply feelings to it.
- dventimi 3y agoIt's not so much an observation as it is a claim. You can't observe something that isn't there, after all.
- grungydan 3y ago>Big corps could just pick things that are trending up, rip them off instantly and scale their ripoff much better thanks to their great workforce and marketing reach. Except that they are already doing this, and since money == "justice" in this country and most of the rest of the world, their big bag of money means that you have zero realistic chance in winning any attempt at suing them for doing so. Copyright is a great conversation to have, but it's a bit like sitting around talking about how to best dry off a plate in the Titanic dining room.