4 ms·

Copyright is intended to promote technological progress. I'm all for ignoring it, since it's so obviously a broken system anyway.

firejake308 2y ago
Technically, copyright promotes creativity and patents promote technological progress. I think patents block progress more than they help it, especially with patent trolls and all, but copyright is probably a net positive for society.
- ben_w 2y ago
  I think copyright did, but no longer, benefit society. The stated goal is to encourage creation of the arts, but looking at how hit-driven arts are, and also at how much more is created than bought[0], there's too much content being made. Most people want to read books in the top 100 best seller list, of which there are necessarily 100 in whatever period that list is re-calculated; or to watch the latest blockbusters, whose number in any given month I don't know but assume isn't much higher than the number of screens in a large cinema complex. But that doesn't mean get rid of it entirely; my (admittedly just a) gut feeling is that 20 years should be enough to claim a monopoly on derivative works, even if we retain an average human lifespan for the original and direct translations. This is separate to trademarks: I think by this point, I should be able to combine Short Circuit and The Matrix into a shared universe if I want to, but it's still a matter of consumer protection to make sure nobody mistakes such a creation for either of the source materials. One thing I absolutely I don't buy is the arguments for copyright protection being "life plus 70 years", which seem to circulate around authors wanting their kids to inherit their residual income. Most people don't get to inherit almost anything, but even if they did, someone's kids will probably[1] live for as many years after the parent's death as the parent lived before that child's birth, not usually 70 years after the parent dies. [0] with exceptions; furry artists report viable income. [1] barring radical changes to life expectancy from global thermonuclear war and/or post-singularity life extension.
- kube-system 2y ago
  There are issues with patent law, but I think general concept of patents still does have utility in promoting R&D. Patent trolling is the exception, not the norm. And places that do respect patent law to a high degree tend to have higher rates of innovation.
  - johngladtj 2y ago
    How do you measure innovation?
- klyrs 2y ago
  At least patents still expire after 20 years
nyokodo 2y ago
> Copyright is intended to promote technological progress What is your reasoning here? Copyright law doesn’t seem to do that at all. Are you thinking of Patent law?
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  The constitutional power is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Yes, that is the Intellectual Property clause, which covers all intellectual property, not just copyright. The 'authors' and 'writers' here are where copyright is derived from. The 'inventors' and 'discoveries' are where patent authority is derived from.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" covers the entire clause. It's not just about science, but those goals have to work together. If a relatively narrow* section of copyright blocks much larger sections of science, something has gone wrong. * When I say narrow, one benchmark is the original stable diffusion, which has fewer parameters than there are images in the training set. Or at least, a hypothetical version without overtraining mistakes. At that point it's remembering next to zero specifics from each image.
adrr 2y ago
Do you ignore software licenses like AGPL?
- behringer 2y ago
  If the AGPL will apply past a decade or two rather than the software falling into the public domain then it's too long.
  - hobs 2y ago
    It will last as long as any other copyright, change them all please :)
    - behringer 2y ago
      Agreed!
- Supermancho 2y ago
  I do when I'm working on internal projects and there's no reason for me to relicense/release code that's still in development. There are practical limits to enforcement. I certainly don't contact the copyright holder when I see someone with an avatar of Family Guy, but you can if you wanted. It's exceedingly unlikely anything happens to them.
Retric 2y ago
The goal is Copyright promotes the Arts, patents promote technological progress, they are different systems with different goals. This line covers both: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” Arts > Authors > Writings > Copyright Science > Inventors > Discoveries > Patents It’s arguable how effective this is, but I doubt anyone is spending 100’s of millions making a movie if there’s no copyright protection or something similar.
- johngladtj 2y ago
  How much is the aggregate spending on YouTube videos?
  - Retric 2y ago
    YouTube shares ~15 billion/year with its creators. A single video is never going to capture even 1% of that number because it would need to represent 1% of total watch time on the platform. Mr Beast is pushing the limits of what you can spend per minute of video to ~150-250k, but he’s subsidizing that with in your face advertisements. With just product placement you’re down to perhaps ~10-15 million for a 90 minute blockbuster which just isn’t enough.
    - johngladtj 2y ago
      I'm not asking about a single video, I'm asking about the aggregate spending. Mr. Beast spends over 2 million per video btw, not 250k The point I'm making is that while copyright based business models might be the prevalent for high expenditures productions, that doesn't mean aggregate spending is increased. It may just mean that copyright incentives higher spending inequality and higher concentration of production, while aggregate spending remains the same.
      - Retric 2y ago
        YouTube compensation is based on watchtimes, which is why I didn’t simply go 2.5m vs 300+ million wow it’s not even within 2 orders of magnitude. > that doesn't mean aggregate spending is increased But the actual spending does. An Olympic Games costs as much as total aggregate compensation from YouTube for an entire year. They have multiple revenue streams but it just shows the scale we are talking about. Netflix spends roughly as much on content as YouTube pays content creators. Add global OTA TV, cable, Movies, pay per view, and the other streaming services like D+ and you’ll get some idea of just how much is being supported by copyright. Hell, even some of YouTube’s compensation goes to old movies because of copyright.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ffgjgf1 2y ago
If people can’t make a living creating high quality content they just won’t. It’s that simple…
- behringer 2y ago
  You can make plenty of profit in 7 years or 20 years or something reasonable like that.

firejake308 2y ago

Technically, copyright promotes creativity and patents promote technological progress. I think patents block progress more than they help it, especially with patent trolls and all, but copyright is probably a net positive for society.

ben_w 2y ago
I think copyright did, but no longer, benefit society. The stated goal is to encourage creation of the arts, but looking at how hit-driven arts are, and also at how much more is created than bought[0], there's too much content being made. Most people want to read books in the top 100 best seller list, of which there are necessarily 100 in whatever period that list is re-calculated; or to watch the latest blockbusters, whose number in any given month I don't know but assume isn't much higher than the number of screens in a large cinema complex. But that doesn't mean get rid of it entirely; my (admittedly just a) gut feeling is that 20 years should be enough to claim a monopoly on derivative works, even if we retain an average human lifespan for the original and direct translations. This is separate to trademarks: I think by this point, I should be able to combine Short Circuit and The Matrix into a shared universe if I want to, but it's still a matter of consumer protection to make sure nobody mistakes such a creation for either of the source materials. One thing I absolutely I don't buy is the arguments for copyright protection being "life plus 70 years", which seem to circulate around authors wanting their kids to inherit their residual income. Most people don't get to inherit almost anything, but even if they did, someone's kids will probably[1] live for as many years after the parent's death as the parent lived before that child's birth, not usually 70 years after the parent dies. [0] with exceptions; furry artists report viable income. [1] barring radical changes to life expectancy from global thermonuclear war and/or post-singularity life extension.
kube-system 2y ago
There are issues with patent law, but I think general concept of patents still does have utility in promoting R&D. Patent trolling is the exception, not the norm. And places that do respect patent law to a high degree tend to have higher rates of innovation.
- johngladtj 2y ago
  How do you measure innovation?
klyrs 2y ago
At least patents still expire after 20 years

nyokodo 2y ago

> Copyright is intended to promote technological progress What is your reasoning here? Copyright law doesn’t seem to do that at all. Are you thinking of Patent law?

Dylan16807 2y ago
The constitutional power is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
- kube-system 2y ago
  Yes, that is the Intellectual Property clause, which covers all intellectual property, not just copyright. The 'authors' and 'writers' here are where copyright is derived from. The 'inventors' and 'discoveries' are where patent authority is derived from.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" covers the entire clause. It's not just about science, but those goals have to work together. If a relatively narrow* section of copyright blocks much larger sections of science, something has gone wrong. * When I say narrow, one benchmark is the original stable diffusion, which has fewer parameters than there are images in the training set. Or at least, a hypothetical version without overtraining mistakes. At that point it's remembering next to zero specifics from each image.

adrr 2y ago

Do you ignore software licenses like AGPL?

behringer 2y ago
If the AGPL will apply past a decade or two rather than the software falling into the public domain then it's too long.
- hobs 2y ago
  It will last as long as any other copyright, change them all please :)
  - behringer 2y ago
    Agreed!
Supermancho 2y ago
I do when I'm working on internal projects and there's no reason for me to relicense/release code that's still in development. There are practical limits to enforcement. I certainly don't contact the copyright holder when I see someone with an avatar of Family Guy, but you can if you wanted. It's exceedingly unlikely anything happens to them.

Retric 2y ago

The goal is Copyright promotes the Arts, patents promote technological progress, they are different systems with different goals. This line covers both: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” Arts > Authors > Writings > Copyright Science > Inventors > Discoveries > Patents It’s arguable how effective this is, but I doubt anyone is spending 100’s of millions making a movie if there’s no copyright protection or something similar.

johngladtj 2y ago
How much is the aggregate spending on YouTube videos?
- Retric 2y ago
  YouTube shares ~15 billion/year with its creators. A single video is never going to capture even 1% of that number because it would need to represent 1% of total watch time on the platform. Mr Beast is pushing the limits of what you can spend per minute of video to ~150-250k, but he’s subsidizing that with in your face advertisements. With just product placement you’re down to perhaps ~10-15 million for a 90 minute blockbuster which just isn’t enough.
  - johngladtj 2y ago
    I'm not asking about a single video, I'm asking about the aggregate spending. Mr. Beast spends over 2 million per video btw, not 250k The point I'm making is that while copyright based business models might be the prevalent for high expenditures productions, that doesn't mean aggregate spending is increased. It may just mean that copyright incentives higher spending inequality and higher concentration of production, while aggregate spending remains the same.
    - Retric 2y ago
      YouTube compensation is based on watchtimes, which is why I didn’t simply go 2.5m vs 300+ million wow it’s not even within 2 orders of magnitude. > that doesn't mean aggregate spending is increased But the actual spending does. An Olympic Games costs as much as total aggregate compensation from YouTube for an entire year. They have multiple revenue streams but it just shows the scale we are talking about. Netflix spends roughly as much on content as YouTube pays content creators. Add global OTA TV, cable, Movies, pay per view, and the other streaming services like D+ and you’ll get some idea of just how much is being supported by copyright. Hell, even some of YouTube’s compensation goes to old movies because of copyright.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ffgjgf1 2y ago

If people can’t make a living creating high quality content they just won’t. It’s that simple…

behringer 2y ago
You can make plenty of profit in 7 years or 20 years or something reasonable like that.