5 ms·
You make a good point, there’s a difference in copyrighting exact works vs. the characters or the story that the work is made up of. I’m not arguing for removin
by lovecg 3y ago
You make a good point, there’s a difference in copyrighting exact works vs. the characters or the story that the work is made up of. I’m not arguing for removing literal copyright (though the terms should be shorter). But I think it’s fine if other people rushed to make their own Star Wars movies after it came out. Hardcore fans are pretty good at deciding what’s “canon” vs. not anyway, and the rest of us don’t care as long as the work is of good quality. Would it matter if the same Spiderman or Batman movie that’s remade once a decade could be made by literally anyone without paying royalties? It could make for richer content I’d think.
- Nevermark 3y agoThe only problem with this view, is: > "the rest of us don’t care as long as the work is of good quality" Copyright protects Disney. But it also protects every creative author, no matter how disadvantaged, from mass shareholder driven behemoths. Today "Disney likes your work" is ear music. Without copyright it would be a death nell.
- Teever 3y agoSo how can we modify copyright so that it protects the little guy more than it protects Disney?
- from-nibly 3y agoThat's not how laws work.
- Teever 3y agoWhat do you mean by that? Do you mean that law has a tendency to work the other way, in that it protects the big guy at the expense of the little guy because of extensive lobbying from the well moneyed big guy, or that justice is blind and it effects all equally? If you're thinking the former I could agree with that on some level and would say that what I'm asking in my original comment is merely aspirational, but if you're suggesting the latter I'd merely point to the former and say that this is the status quo.
- Nevermark 3y agoThe law generally tries to create a level playing field (or more level playing field). The alternative, creating two classes, those who the law helps and those it doesn't, gets incredibly complicated and easy to game: the powerful will get their version of the law. In the name of protecting the weak, the law will protect the powerful. Making everything much worse.
- Teever 3y agoThis isn't true. I can think of many examples off the top of my head. Tax brackets, accredited investors, professional regulation, varying classes of drivers licenses, voting ages, retirement age and pension eligibility... the list goes on and on.
- Nevermark 3y agoYou are right. The entire basis of those laws is the two classes. I was referring to laws (such as copyright) that don't have an inherent class distinction dimension. Since separating classes is not a primary concern of copyright, having two classes creates an arbitrary line which will almost certainly end up where the rich want it.
- Teever 3y ago> Since separating classes is not a primary concern of copyright, This is also incorrect as copyright is intrinsically about creating two classes of people -- those who own the copyright and those who don't.