4 ms·

It's still weird to me that we ended up in a world in which every bit of information can now be copied at zero cost and instead of heralding and building upon t

It's still weird to me that we ended up in a world in which every bit of information can now be copied at zero cost and instead of heralding and building upon that technological achievement we've somehow decided that instead we're going to make laws to protect and enforce rent seeking instead. I assume it's one of those things where a few corpos just outplayed 99% of the population; just like universal health care, or public education.

staplers 2y ago
I assume it's one of those things where a few corpos just outplayed 99% of the population "The key element of social control is the strategy of distraction that is to divert public attention from important issues and changes decided by political and economic elites" -Chomsky
- kiba 2y ago
  Everyone believe they need copyright, therefore it is the status quo.
  - Teever 2y ago
    Does everyone believe that we need copyright to be the exact way that it is though? I'm pretty sure that the reason that copyright laws are the way they are is because certain industries in the US lobby the government to strong arm other countries into adopting onerous copyright restrictions as part of free trade agreements. Whatever you feel about the merits of intellectual property laws the idea that they're wrapped up as 'free trade' when they in fact make things that would otherwise be free cost money is downright Orwellian. Maybe countries that don't really have a film or tv industry don't want to see copyright on those products and why would they? Why would they want to see their citizens paying American countries for something that would otherwise be free?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      I'm fine going back to the old 14+14 rules copyright originally. having your creation for an entire generation seems appropriate. But opinions are all across the spectrum on this issue. I think the primary reason the "spirit" of current copyright broke down is because it's been reduced to hoarding over protecting. the idea is that I can license out an idea if I really want to make use of it. So creations flow and the company makes their own cut out of it. But I can't just walk up to Disney and pay 100 dollars ,1000, maybe even 1 million to grab Mickey Mouse and work with something. Depending on their products, they may not want anyone using Mickey period, even if there is no mickey product cycle. You basically need to be EA or Mattel or Warner Bros. to even begin being considered for such a thing. That's their right but it spoils the social contract. When everything by default is locked down, there is no creation flowing. Just broken dreams for abandoned franchises everyone else would love to make use of.
  - t-writescode 2y ago
    It’s a reasonable stance to want copyright. It’s an anti-consumer stance to force copyright to nearly 100 years and allow no format swapping under a hilariously broad set of normal transmission and format-swapping techniques.
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    No one has put forth a good argument about why I don't need copyright.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      There's definitely tiers of copyright to consider, which is part of the divisiveness on the issue. You wanting to protect your creation and get compensated for its IP for 10-20 years (so, a good portion of your life career) is very different from Disney wanting to delay Mickey mouse going into public domain. an IP its creator and studio already reaped trillions from over the century.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      No one should have to. If we're talking about putting/maintaining restrictions on people, the onus should be on the proponents to put forth a good argument why we need it.
      - BadHumans 2y ago
        Not when you are the one trying to change the status quo. Regardless of what you believe, if you want to change the default you need to explain to people why it should change. A self-righteous stance like yours will change nothing.
        twothreeone 2y ago
        Well the argument is that the status quo is bad for all but a select few, so moving past it would be beneficial for basically nearly everybody. Rent seeking limits innovation, needlessly drives up costs, creates barriers where there shouldn't be any, encourages predatory economic behaviors, suppresses competition, and ultimately leads to monopolistic and or oligopolic wealth and power structures. It's universally bad practice that results in bad outcomes for society and we should move away from enabling and indeed incentivizing that kind of economic behavior.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
Uhh, it's because information can be easily copied that the laws were put in place. If anyone can "steal" your work then it would be a deterrent to invention. If I'm a business that can make money on the service contract I can sell the unit at a lower price. Now I'm forced to make the unit cost higher.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
This seems like a very one-sided take. Just look at all the artists (actors, painters, musicians, etc.) that are fighting tooth and nail against AI, and for good reason. While there are plenty of issues with copyright, I don't agree at all that just because the marginal cost of copying is 0 that if someone puts a ton of time and effort in creating a piece of work that I should just get to copy it for free.
- twothreeone 2y ago
  That's not the argument though. The argument is that rent seeking as a business strategy is a deeply flawed and counter productive economic practice that ultimately limits our species' technological advancements and societal progress. The sooner we move past it, the better off we will all be. I agree that you should be able to create whatever you want and keep it 100%. So, clearly if someone were to steal your creation from your home and publish it online that would be theft. However, if you decided to take advantage of your creation by creating an infinite number of copies at no cost to you at all (which is what publishing through digital media means) that's your decision as a creator to make, nobody forced that on you.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    I don't like your redefinition of "rent seeking" at all. If I create an original piece of art, and publish it digitally, preventing other people from freely copying that art is not rent seeking - the thing I created didn't exist in any form before I created it, and I'm not trying to "extract rent" from you by preventing you from creating any of your own works. Now, like I said previously, there are currently issues with copyright, and this can cross into rent seeking if I try to extract money from your own original works of art (see the family of Marvin Gaye), and there are issues with the length of copyright (i.e. I believe there is a fundamental difference in protecting the right of a creator while they're alive, vs. the rights of inheritors in perpetuity). But the whole concept of rent seeking is around using the power of government to extract money from others simply because you were there first, not around allowing unlimited copying of truly original works.
dkarras 2y ago
I don't understand this. Copyright law does not prevent people from sharing their information freely. It gives the option for "rent seekers" to do their thing. Enforcing your rights for return is optional for people that don't want to do it. I'm not talking about right-to-repair here, but the idea of copyright in general. A lot of information is generated by taking some financial risk with the hopes of creating something of value and recouping that investment + some profit. Copyright makes that kind of venture possible. It doesn't prevent altruistic souls from putting in the same effort without any expectation of return. We always had this, by default. Copyright framework allows pursuit, generation and dissemination of huge swaths of valuable information that would otherwise not exist.

staplers 2y ago

I assume it's one of those things where a few corpos just outplayed 99% of the population "The key element of social control is the strategy of distraction that is to divert public attention from important issues and changes decided by political and economic elites" -Chomsky

kiba 2y ago
Everyone believe they need copyright, therefore it is the status quo.
- Teever 2y ago
  Does everyone believe that we need copyright to be the exact way that it is though? I'm pretty sure that the reason that copyright laws are the way they are is because certain industries in the US lobby the government to strong arm other countries into adopting onerous copyright restrictions as part of free trade agreements. Whatever you feel about the merits of intellectual property laws the idea that they're wrapped up as 'free trade' when they in fact make things that would otherwise be free cost money is downright Orwellian. Maybe countries that don't really have a film or tv industry don't want to see copyright on those products and why would they? Why would they want to see their citizens paying American countries for something that would otherwise be free?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I'm fine going back to the old 14+14 rules copyright originally. having your creation for an entire generation seems appropriate. But opinions are all across the spectrum on this issue. I think the primary reason the "spirit" of current copyright broke down is because it's been reduced to hoarding over protecting. the idea is that I can license out an idea if I really want to make use of it. So creations flow and the company makes their own cut out of it. But I can't just walk up to Disney and pay 100 dollars ,1000, maybe even 1 million to grab Mickey Mouse and work with something. Depending on their products, they may not want anyone using Mickey period, even if there is no mickey product cycle. You basically need to be EA or Mattel or Warner Bros. to even begin being considered for such a thing. That's their right but it spoils the social contract. When everything by default is locked down, there is no creation flowing. Just broken dreams for abandoned franchises everyone else would love to make use of.
- t-writescode 2y ago
  It’s a reasonable stance to want copyright. It’s an anti-consumer stance to force copyright to nearly 100 years and allow no format swapping under a hilariously broad set of normal transmission and format-swapping techniques.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  No one has put forth a good argument about why I don't need copyright.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    There's definitely tiers of copyright to consider, which is part of the divisiveness on the issue. You wanting to protect your creation and get compensated for its IP for 10-20 years (so, a good portion of your life career) is very different from Disney wanting to delay Mickey mouse going into public domain. an IP its creator and studio already reaped trillions from over the century.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    No one should have to. If we're talking about putting/maintaining restrictions on people, the onus should be on the proponents to put forth a good argument why we need it.
    - BadHumans 2y ago
      Not when you are the one trying to change the status quo. Regardless of what you believe, if you want to change the default you need to explain to people why it should change. A self-righteous stance like yours will change nothing.
      - twothreeone 2y ago
        Well the argument is that the status quo is bad for all but a select few, so moving past it would be beneficial for basically nearly everybody. Rent seeking limits innovation, needlessly drives up costs, creates barriers where there shouldn't be any, encourages predatory economic behaviors, suppresses competition, and ultimately leads to monopolistic and or oligopolic wealth and power structures. It's universally bad practice that results in bad outcomes for society and we should move away from enabling and indeed incentivizing that kind of economic behavior.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

d0gsg0w00f 2y ago

Uhh, it's because information can be easily copied that the laws were put in place. If anyone can "steal" your work then it would be a deterrent to invention. If I'm a business that can make money on the service contract I can sell the unit at a lower price. Now I'm forced to make the unit cost higher.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

This seems like a very one-sided take. Just look at all the artists (actors, painters, musicians, etc.) that are fighting tooth and nail against AI, and for good reason. While there are plenty of issues with copyright, I don't agree at all that just because the marginal cost of copying is 0 that if someone puts a ton of time and effort in creating a piece of work that I should just get to copy it for free.

twothreeone 2y ago
That's not the argument though. The argument is that rent seeking as a business strategy is a deeply flawed and counter productive economic practice that ultimately limits our species' technological advancements and societal progress. The sooner we move past it, the better off we will all be. I agree that you should be able to create whatever you want and keep it 100%. So, clearly if someone were to steal your creation from your home and publish it online that would be theft. However, if you decided to take advantage of your creation by creating an infinite number of copies at no cost to you at all (which is what publishing through digital media means) that's your decision as a creator to make, nobody forced that on you.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I don't like your redefinition of "rent seeking" at all. If I create an original piece of art, and publish it digitally, preventing other people from freely copying that art is not rent seeking - the thing I created didn't exist in any form before I created it, and I'm not trying to "extract rent" from you by preventing you from creating any of your own works. Now, like I said previously, there are currently issues with copyright, and this can cross into rent seeking if I try to extract money from your own original works of art (see the family of Marvin Gaye), and there are issues with the length of copyright (i.e. I believe there is a fundamental difference in protecting the right of a creator while they're alive, vs. the rights of inheritors in perpetuity). But the whole concept of rent seeking is around using the power of government to extract money from others simply because you were there first, not around allowing unlimited copying of truly original works.

dkarras 2y ago

I don't understand this. Copyright law does not prevent people from sharing their information freely. It gives the option for "rent seekers" to do their thing. Enforcing your rights for return is optional for people that don't want to do it. I'm not talking about right-to-repair here, but the idea of copyright in general. A lot of information is generated by taking some financial risk with the hopes of creating something of value and recouping that investment + some profit. Copyright makes that kind of venture possible. It doesn't prevent altruistic souls from putting in the same effort without any expectation of return. We always had this, by default. Copyright framework allows pursuit, generation and dissemination of huge swaths of valuable information that would otherwise not exist.