6 ms·

Am I the only one believing that copyright has long outlived its usefulness? After all, copyright is not some natural law or mathematical consequence, but rathe

Am I the only one believing that copyright has long outlived its usefulness? After all, copyright is not some natural law or mathematical consequence, but rather a social convention that made sense in the era of the printing press.

lbotos 3y ago
Copyright in its current form yes. But the concept and closer to the original (creators lifetime + x years or some such) seems still very valuable. Copyright is still the bedrock of how many tech software business actually can make money.
- noitpmeder 3y ago
  Which is why there are so many competing interests (in this thread, and elsewhere) trying to say it should be 100% legal to steal from those companies. They all want to profit unfairly off the work of others.
  - clbrmbr 3y ago
    Well it wouldn’t be stealing if the work was not covered by copyright. It also wouldn’t be “unfair” if the rules were changed. —- I’m asking that we imagine how else could our information economy look if we had some other legal foundation. Maybe, like markets, copyright is already close to an ideal, but perhaps there’s some economic innovation here yet undiscovered or unexplored?
asylteltine 3y ago
And how are you supposed to make money from something you invent? Let’s say you make a hit video game. Without copyright people can pirate your game, steal the art, make unauthorized derivative works, etc. it’s just theft.
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  My personal observation is people who are against copyright in absolute terms have never or rarely needed their protection. (Or never considered the implications.) I’m not making a dig at people here. This is just human nature. It’s difficult to see the value in something that you only see as an obstacle. Open source software is rather unusual. It’s a commune on a massive scale and it gets its value from the generosity of others. in my opinion, it is possibly one of the greatest achievements in the history and future of computing. However, it heavily depends on copyright to exist. GPL has encouraged (or forced) many companies to contribute to the community when they wouldn’t have otherwise.
  - asylteltine 3y ago
    This is true and I see it with cops and free speech as well. Everyone loves to hate cops… until they need them. Everyone wants to defund the police… until they are a victim of crime. Everyone wants to enforce certain speech patterns… until it affects them
    - Snow_Falls 3y ago
      Everyone is a free speech absolutist until they're the one targeted. Everyone loves cops until it's their rights being violated... These sorts of arguments can be made in either direction.
    - MeImCounting 3y ago
      This isnt a great take at all. Copyright is certainly an important part of our society upon which like the parent said, Open Source Software and other incredibly valuable things lie. Cops on the other hand solely exist for the reason of locking people in cages. Why you ever feel like you need to have someone else locked in a cage is beyond me. When I have been the victim of a crime the cops have not shown and when they did have been less than helpful. This is a pattern for all the people in my subjective bubble. About that whole speech patterns thing. I assume you mean addressing people in a polite way? Thats not enforcing certain speech patterns thats actually just being a respectful member of society.
- kromem 3y ago
  Star Citizen could release and immediately be pirated and never sell a single copy from release onwards and likely still have ended up profitable. Maybe the business models around creation need to be revisited such that interested parties pay for the creation of a product and not distribution of a product. Where periodically at each stage of that creation you are getting continued buy in that what you are creating has a market demand that will fund its continued creation. If you are an indie game developer maybe that means making a demo which gets enough interest to fund you spending the time and resources to make a full game, with no expectations for further revenue post-creation, but with its success meaning your next project is even easier to fund the development of and a comfortable lifestyle rinse and repeating.
  - opyate 3y ago
    > If you are an indie game developer... We're kinda doing this already with Patreon: give us 5 quid a month, and you get a little game every whenever.
kayodelycaon 3y ago
As an author, I do want the stories I write and worlds I build to be protected for a reasonable period. Right now, copyright is a significant discouragement to any other entities from taking a story I wrote and claiming it as their own and preventing me from ever growing an audience for my work. It’s far from perfect, and I can’t afford litigation, but it enshrines a cultural value of allowing people to create things and be known for them. Profit is a side effect of this. Art is already poorly valued compared to the enormous investment time and energy required to produce it. Removing copyright means you can’t even have minimal protections from a more popular person erasing you.
- Snow_Falls 3y ago
  How do you feel about the lengths of copyright? Do you feel the current length (life + 70 years) is too much/too little/ just right? Personally, as much as I hate the concept of copyright, I do still want artists (I include authors etc in this term) to be able to do their work professionally without relying on something like patreon (which primarily predates serialised work like comics) so I would prefer shortening copyright to something more in line with patents, 20 years. How do you, as an author, feel about reform like that?
  - kayodelycaon 3y ago
    The current length is indefensible to me. There is zero justification for it beyond pure profit. I’d prefer it be lifetime of original creator, only for the original creator. All other cases (transfer of copyright, death of the creator, etc) would have a maximum of 20 years. Alternatively, I’d prefer 30 or 40 years, but I would grudgingly accept 20. :)
    - Snow_Falls 3y ago
      See, I actuall disagree, o think it should be a set time, regardless of authors death and inheritable. I think there would be a lot of things not made near the end of the creators life if they didn't think their family would be supported by it. Hence, why I think it should be a fixed length. Also I think it could he shorter than 20 years, I picked that just because its the length of patents. IMO, if you haven't profited sifficoently off something in say 10 years, then it doesn't really benefit you to hold it for longer. Do you have any reason for 40 years or does it just "feel right", like with my arbitrary choice to have it be parity with patents?
ausbah 3y ago
people still print stuff, now it’s just on the internet, podcasts, etc so I don’t see why copyright should change just because the mediums have. also marking out as a “societal convention so it must be useless” is also pretty silly when money, gender, and whole heap of other concepts are societal conventions but still useful

lbotos 3y ago

Copyright in its current form yes. But the concept and closer to the original (creators lifetime + x years or some such) seems still very valuable. Copyright is still the bedrock of how many tech software business actually can make money.

noitpmeder 3y ago
Which is why there are so many competing interests (in this thread, and elsewhere) trying to say it should be 100% legal to steal from those companies. They all want to profit unfairly off the work of others.
- clbrmbr 3y ago
  Well it wouldn’t be stealing if the work was not covered by copyright. It also wouldn’t be “unfair” if the rules were changed. —- I’m asking that we imagine how else could our information economy look if we had some other legal foundation. Maybe, like markets, copyright is already close to an ideal, but perhaps there’s some economic innovation here yet undiscovered or unexplored?

asylteltine 3y ago

And how are you supposed to make money from something you invent? Let’s say you make a hit video game. Without copyright people can pirate your game, steal the art, make unauthorized derivative works, etc. it’s just theft.

kayodelycaon 3y ago
My personal observation is people who are against copyright in absolute terms have never or rarely needed their protection. (Or never considered the implications.) I’m not making a dig at people here. This is just human nature. It’s difficult to see the value in something that you only see as an obstacle. Open source software is rather unusual. It’s a commune on a massive scale and it gets its value from the generosity of others. in my opinion, it is possibly one of the greatest achievements in the history and future of computing. However, it heavily depends on copyright to exist. GPL has encouraged (or forced) many companies to contribute to the community when they wouldn’t have otherwise.
- asylteltine 3y ago
  This is true and I see it with cops and free speech as well. Everyone loves to hate cops… until they need them. Everyone wants to defund the police… until they are a victim of crime. Everyone wants to enforce certain speech patterns… until it affects them
  - Snow_Falls 3y ago
    Everyone is a free speech absolutist until they're the one targeted. Everyone loves cops until it's their rights being violated... These sorts of arguments can be made in either direction.
  - MeImCounting 3y ago
    This isnt a great take at all. Copyright is certainly an important part of our society upon which like the parent said, Open Source Software and other incredibly valuable things lie. Cops on the other hand solely exist for the reason of locking people in cages. Why you ever feel like you need to have someone else locked in a cage is beyond me. When I have been the victim of a crime the cops have not shown and when they did have been less than helpful. This is a pattern for all the people in my subjective bubble. About that whole speech patterns thing. I assume you mean addressing people in a polite way? Thats not enforcing certain speech patterns thats actually just being a respectful member of society.
kromem 3y ago
Star Citizen could release and immediately be pirated and never sell a single copy from release onwards and likely still have ended up profitable. Maybe the business models around creation need to be revisited such that interested parties pay for the creation of a product and not distribution of a product. Where periodically at each stage of that creation you are getting continued buy in that what you are creating has a market demand that will fund its continued creation. If you are an indie game developer maybe that means making a demo which gets enough interest to fund you spending the time and resources to make a full game, with no expectations for further revenue post-creation, but with its success meaning your next project is even easier to fund the development of and a comfortable lifestyle rinse and repeating.
- opyate 3y ago
  > If you are an indie game developer... We're kinda doing this already with Patreon: give us 5 quid a month, and you get a little game every whenever.

kayodelycaon 3y ago

As an author, I do want the stories I write and worlds I build to be protected for a reasonable period. Right now, copyright is a significant discouragement to any other entities from taking a story I wrote and claiming it as their own and preventing me from ever growing an audience for my work. It’s far from perfect, and I can’t afford litigation, but it enshrines a cultural value of allowing people to create things and be known for them. Profit is a side effect of this. Art is already poorly valued compared to the enormous investment time and energy required to produce it. Removing copyright means you can’t even have minimal protections from a more popular person erasing you.

Snow_Falls 3y ago
How do you feel about the lengths of copyright? Do you feel the current length (life + 70 years) is too much/too little/ just right? Personally, as much as I hate the concept of copyright, I do still want artists (I include authors etc in this term) to be able to do their work professionally without relying on something like patreon (which primarily predates serialised work like comics) so I would prefer shortening copyright to something more in line with patents, 20 years. How do you, as an author, feel about reform like that?
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  The current length is indefensible to me. There is zero justification for it beyond pure profit. I’d prefer it be lifetime of original creator, only for the original creator. All other cases (transfer of copyright, death of the creator, etc) would have a maximum of 20 years. Alternatively, I’d prefer 30 or 40 years, but I would grudgingly accept 20. :)
  - Snow_Falls 3y ago
    See, I actuall disagree, o think it should be a set time, regardless of authors death and inheritable. I think there would be a lot of things not made near the end of the creators life if they didn't think their family would be supported by it. Hence, why I think it should be a fixed length. Also I think it could he shorter than 20 years, I picked that just because its the length of patents. IMO, if you haven't profited sifficoently off something in say 10 years, then it doesn't really benefit you to hold it for longer. Do you have any reason for 40 years or does it just "feel right", like with my arbitrary choice to have it be parity with patents?

ausbah 3y ago

people still print stuff, now it’s just on the internet, podcasts, etc so I don’t see why copyright should change just because the mediums have. also marking out as a “societal convention so it must be useless” is also pretty silly when money, gender, and whole heap of other concepts are societal conventions but still useful