2 ms·
Either copyrights exist, and people can't copy creative works "owned" by somebody else, or copyrights don't exist and people can copy those at will. "Copyright
by marcosdumay 2y ago
Either copyrights exist, and people can't copy creative works "owned" by somebody else, or copyrights don't exist and people can copy those at will.
"Copyrights exist, and people can copy others works if they have enough computing power to multiplex it with other works and demultiplex to get it back" is not a reasonable position.
I'm all for limiting it to 15 or 20 years, and requiring registration. If you want to completely end them, I'd be ok with that too (but I think it's suboptimal). But "end them to rich people" isn't acceptable.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> Either copyrights exist, and people can't copy creative works "owned" by somebody else, or copyrights don't exist and people can copy those at will. Like most simple binaries, this is a false dichotomy, and not only do more options exist in possibility, but neither of those matches the overt state of the law (where copyrights exist, but so do a range of caveats and exceptions, so people can copy and otherwise make use of works by others without permission under certain circumstances, but not at will, satisfying neither of the two options you present as exhaustive of all possibilities.)
- reedciccio 2y ago> Either copyrights exist, and people can't copy creative works "owned" by somebody else, or copyrights don't exist and people can copy those at will. that's not how copyright works, it's not a binary thing. Also, it's similar but not the same in every legislation. You can make partial copies, you can make full copies as personal backup, you can make copies to transform copyrighted material (like create art and parodies.) These cases are going to decide whether Google Books was a fluke or indeed, there is a limit to the power of the big copyright holders (not the artists/creators: those keep on starving, except few lucky ones.)