3 ms·
Waaay overdue to roll back copyright to it's original limits. There's a lot of history that's just wiped out and it's a great loss to humanity.
by beej71 2y ago
Waaay overdue to roll back copyright to it's original limits. There's a lot of history that's just wiped out and it's a great loss to humanity.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoIs this even a copyright issue? If no one archives something and it goes down, the policy for reproduction doesn't matter.
- beej71 2y agoIt's true that if no one archives it, it's gone. But there are people willing to archive things like this, and copyright makes it illegal to do so. Edit: it's not the archiving that's illegal (probably)--it's the sharing of the archive that is. And sure they can share it after the copyright term runs out, but that's so far in the future the odds of an unmirrored archive surviving are slim.
- throwaway290 2y agoCopyright does not make it illegal to archive. There should be a better exception about how to make accessible archives in case the source goes down I agree. But it should be nothing to do with copyright term.
- throwaway290 2y agoFair use and archival where copyright doesn't come into play. Copyright utterly needs strengthening, not weakening.
- rany_ 2y agoReally? It takes a ridiculously long time for anything to enter the public domain. The original intention of copyright was to incentivize authors. It was not intended as a means of passive income for corporations, profiting off works that were made long after the death of the original creators and their immediate descendants.
- throwaway290 2y agoThe issue with MTV taking down its archive has nothing to do with copyright duration. If Netflix takes down its archive tomorrow you will say copyright is too long again. You can say it every time something is inconvenient to you as consumer (not producer and copyright holder). So in the end you will argue for elimination of copyright.
- beej71 2y agoAs someone who makes use of copyright to protect my works, I completely disagree that it needs strengthening. I'm sure the MPAA and RIAA disagree with me. 28 years is more than enough. I'd argue for even less. Edit: and this case drives it home. Copyright makes it illegal to preserve this music history, and the owners don't give a shit.
- raverbashing 2y agoProbably this also makes the case for different timelines for different types of content or usage Also a mandatory CC/NC licensing for some type of content could be a good idea
- throwaway290 2y agoIt should not depend on types of content but more like intangible cultural value, maybe case by case basis, that would allow to distribute archive if the original is unavailable even before copyright expiration
- throwaway290 2y agoThis has nothing to do with copyright duration, if Netflix takes down its archive tomorrow you will say the same thing. Let's shorten it to 2 years right? It's not illegal to archive of course. Video recorders were a thing even back in the day of MTV, completely legal consumer devices.
- beej71 2y agoBy the same argument, let's lengthen it to 1000 years, right? Someone can still archive it until it falls into the public domain! I think saying that duration isn't a factor is oversimplifying the issue. We'd be relying on multiple independent archivists to all hold individually-obtained copies of the data for nearly 100 years, and none of them would be allowed to transfer the data to anyone else. That's a very different scenario to one where the data were freely mirrorable after 24 years.
- weberer 2y agoI wish I could just upvote the first half, since you're right about that.
- throwaway290 2y agoErosion of copyright = erosion of creativity. If IP theft is OK then people can safely assume you didn't actually make your work of art (since it's easier to steal/generate). It doesn't inspire creativity.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]