4 ms·

> IA has argued that because copyright law is intended to provide equal access to knowledge, copyright law is better served by allowing IA's lending than by pre

> IA has argued that because copyright law is intended to provide equal access to knowledge, copyright law is better served by allowing IA's lending than by preventing it. This seems like the opposite of the intent of copyright? How could the intent of granting an artificial monopoly to one party on disseminating information be to provide equal access to knowledge?

SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8. > The Congress shall have Power… > 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; … Copyright is a means to an end. The end must be to promote the progress of science and useful arts for Congress to have the power to create such monopolies.
withinboredom 2y ago
To me, it seems like someone got confused with patents, where you share your invention with the world, but claim a monopoly on using it.
- alphabeta2024 2y ago
  Even the objective of patients was to disincentivize trade secrets by allowing limited-time monopoly and thereby making knowledge public without destroying the economic incentives.
alphabeta2024 2y ago
The whole objective of copyright is to encourage dissemination of knowledge. The idea originally was that by allowing authors some exclusivity over their creations for some years, there would be economic incentives to produce various technical, cultural works. The artificial monopoly is a means to an end, not an end to itself.
- xhkkffbf 2y ago
  This. There are a few people who might write a book and give it away for free, but if you want professional artists you need to ensure that they can make money by selling copies. In other words, someone like the Internet Archive won't start giving it away for free. In any case, calling it a "monopoly" is a bit unfair. It's like saying the rape laws give a woman a "monopoly" on her body. No one is stopped from creating their own art, just from plagiarizing others.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    no - monopoly has a smaller, technical meaning in law.
  - 93po 2y ago
    in a kind constructive way: if you can find non-rape analogies, it might be kinder to people who are sensitive to that word
cogman10 2y ago
It was the original intent before copyright terms got expanded out to insanity. (Ditto for patents). The notion was that instead of having authors jealously and exclusively guarding their works, they can copyright them and get a period of guaranteed income. After that period lapses, the works enter the public domain which enriches the general public. That reduces the risk of important works being lost. Without the copyrights, you could imagine private libraries popping up and works only accessible via strict security.
- Zambyte 2y ago
  > Without the copyrights, you could imagine private libraries popping up and works only accessible via strict security. I don't really have to imagine it. That seems exactly like every company that has an internal wiki or something similar. Noted on the original point though. That just seems like such a foreign problem from todays environment with how readily people share information. I think it is more due to ease than the right to an artificial monopoly that people share so much information now though.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    > That just seems like such a foreign problem from todays environment with how readily people share information. I think it is more due to ease than the right to an artificial monopoly that people share so much information now though. Totally agree. It solved a very different problem than what we have today and even runs counter to the original intent because of how much the terms have been expanded. Now, we have things like scientific publishers who jealously lock up papers behind expensive paywalls and use copyright as a kludge to keep those papers from ever seeing the general public. What's worse, because everything is digital it's entirely feasible that these papers will all be lost to time if one of these companies goes out of business. It really is high time we revisit what copyrights are doing vs what they were intended to do. I'm not opposed to keeping them around, but at very least we should change the time they apply to something far more reasonable. Heck, even when copyright is applicable should be bound to whether or not the work has been submitted to a national archiving service. Not submitted to the archiving service, no copyright applies.
makmanalp 2y ago
Because by providing a temporary monopoly, it allows one a better guarantee to recoup costs, making the investment worthwhile in the first place, thus incentivizing people to spend time and effort creating works in the first place. Then, once the work has been created and costs recouped, it reverts to the public domain where everyone can access it. At least that's how pro-copyright parties explain it, not sure that ever was actually historically accurate.

SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8. > The Congress shall have Power… > 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; … Copyright is a means to an end. The end must be to promote the progress of science and useful arts for Congress to have the power to create such monopolies.

withinboredom 2y ago

To me, it seems like someone got confused with patents, where you share your invention with the world, but claim a monopoly on using it.

alphabeta2024 2y ago
Even the objective of patients was to disincentivize trade secrets by allowing limited-time monopoly and thereby making knowledge public without destroying the economic incentives.

alphabeta2024 2y ago

The whole objective of copyright is to encourage dissemination of knowledge. The idea originally was that by allowing authors some exclusivity over their creations for some years, there would be economic incentives to produce various technical, cultural works. The artificial monopoly is a means to an end, not an end to itself.

xhkkffbf 2y ago
This. There are a few people who might write a book and give it away for free, but if you want professional artists you need to ensure that they can make money by selling copies. In other words, someone like the Internet Archive won't start giving it away for free. In any case, calling it a "monopoly" is a bit unfair. It's like saying the rape laws give a woman a "monopoly" on her body. No one is stopped from creating their own art, just from plagiarizing others.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  no - monopoly has a smaller, technical meaning in law.
- 93po 2y ago
  in a kind constructive way: if you can find non-rape analogies, it might be kinder to people who are sensitive to that word

cogman10 2y ago

It was the original intent before copyright terms got expanded out to insanity. (Ditto for patents). The notion was that instead of having authors jealously and exclusively guarding their works, they can copyright them and get a period of guaranteed income. After that period lapses, the works enter the public domain which enriches the general public. That reduces the risk of important works being lost. Without the copyrights, you could imagine private libraries popping up and works only accessible via strict security.

Zambyte 2y ago
> Without the copyrights, you could imagine private libraries popping up and works only accessible via strict security. I don't really have to imagine it. That seems exactly like every company that has an internal wiki or something similar. Noted on the original point though. That just seems like such a foreign problem from todays environment with how readily people share information. I think it is more due to ease than the right to an artificial monopoly that people share so much information now though.
- cogman10 2y ago
  > That just seems like such a foreign problem from todays environment with how readily people share information. I think it is more due to ease than the right to an artificial monopoly that people share so much information now though. Totally agree. It solved a very different problem than what we have today and even runs counter to the original intent because of how much the terms have been expanded. Now, we have things like scientific publishers who jealously lock up papers behind expensive paywalls and use copyright as a kludge to keep those papers from ever seeing the general public. What's worse, because everything is digital it's entirely feasible that these papers will all be lost to time if one of these companies goes out of business. It really is high time we revisit what copyrights are doing vs what they were intended to do. I'm not opposed to keeping them around, but at very least we should change the time they apply to something far more reasonable. Heck, even when copyright is applicable should be bound to whether or not the work has been submitted to a national archiving service. Not submitted to the archiving service, no copyright applies.

makmanalp 2y ago

Because by providing a temporary monopoly, it allows one a better guarantee to recoup costs, making the investment worthwhile in the first place, thus incentivizing people to spend time and effort creating works in the first place. Then, once the work has been created and costs recouped, it reverts to the public domain where everyone can access it. At least that's how pro-copyright parties explain it, not sure that ever was actually historically accurate.