5 ms·

Yes, 100%. And that’s why throwing copyright selectively in the bin now when there’s an ongoing massive transfer of wealth from creators to mega corps, is so su

by klabb3 1y ago

Yes, 100%. And that’s why throwing copyright selectively in the bin now when there’s an ongoing massive transfer of wealth from creators to mega corps, is so surprising. It’s almost as if governments were only protecting economic interests of creators when the creators were powerful (eg movie studios), going after individuals for piracy and DRM circumvention. Now that the mega corps are the ones pirating at a scale they get a free pass through a loophole designed for individuals (fair use). Anyway, the show must go on so were unlikely to see any reversal of this. It’s a big experiment and not necessarily anything that will benefit even the model providers themselves in the medium term. It’s clear that the ”free for all” policy on grabbing whatever data you can get is already having chilling effects. From artists and authors not publishing their works publicly, to locking down of open web with anti-scraping. Were basically entering an era of adversarial data management, with incentives to exploit others for data while protecting the data you have from others accessing it.

ramses0 1y ago
You've put into words what I've been internally struggling to voice. Information (on the web) is a gas, it expands once it escapes. In limited, closed systems, it may not escape, but all it takes is one bad (or hacked) actor and the privacy of it is gone. In a way, we used to be "protected" because it was "too big" to process, store, or access "everything". Now, especially with an economic incentive to vacuum literally all digital information, and many works being "digital first" (even a word processor vs a typewriter, or a PDF that is sent to a printer instead of lithograph metal plates)... is this the information Armageddon?
isaacremuant 1y ago
Governments always protect the interests of their powerful friends and donors over the people they allegedly represent. They've just mastered the art of lying to gullible idiots or complicit psycophants. It's not new to anyone who pays and kind of attention.
vidarh 1y ago
Why? Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators, 2) Statute of Anne, the birth of modern copyright law, protected printers - that is "big businesss" over creators anyway, so even that has largely always been a fiction. But it is also increasingly dubious that the public gets a good deal out of copyright law anyway. > From artists and authors not publishing their works publicly The vast majority of creators have never been able to get remotely close to make a living from their creative work, and instead often when factoring in time lose money hand over fist trying to get their works noticed.
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  I generally let it slide because these copyright discussions tend to be about America, and as such it can be assumed American law and what it inherits from British law is what pertains. >Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators, yes, in the U.S in the EU creators have moral rights to their works and the law is to protect their interests. There are actually moral rights and rights of exploitation, in EU you can transfer the latter but not the former. >But it is also increasingly dubious that the public gets a good deal out of copyright law anyway. In the EU's view of copyright the public doesn't need to get a good deal, the creators of copyrighted works do.
  - vidarh 1y ago
    > There are actually moral rights and rights of exploitation, in EU you can transfer the latter but not the former. And when we talk about copyright we generally talk about the rights of exploitation, where the rationale used today is about the advancement of arts and sciences - a public benefit. There's a reason the name is English is copy-right, where the other Germanic languages focuses more on the work - in the Anglosphere the notion of moral rights as separate from rights of exploitation is well outside the mainstream. > In the EU's view of copyright the public doesn't need to get a good deal, the creators of copyrighted works do. Most individual nations copyright law still does uphold the pretence of being for the public good, however. Without that pretence, there is no moral basis for restricting the rights of the public the way copyright law does. But it has nevertheless been abundantly clear all the way back to the Statute of Anne that any talk of either public goods or rights of exploitation for the creator are excuses, and that these laws if anything mostly exist for the protection of business interests.
daedrdev 1y ago
copyright is the backbone of modern media empires. It both allows small creators and massive corporations to seek rent on works, but since the works are under copyright for a century its quite nice to corporations

by klabb3 1y ago

ramses0 1y ago

You've put into words what I've been internally struggling to voice. Information (on the web) is a gas, it expands once it escapes. In limited, closed systems, it may not escape, but all it takes is one bad (or hacked) actor and the privacy of it is gone. In a way, we used to be "protected" because it was "too big" to process, store, or access "everything". Now, especially with an economic incentive to vacuum literally all digital information, and many works being "digital first" (even a word processor vs a typewriter, or a PDF that is sent to a printer instead of lithograph metal plates)... is this the information Armageddon?

isaacremuant 1y ago

Governments always protect the interests of their powerful friends and donors over the people they allegedly represent. They've just mastered the art of lying to gullible idiots or complicit psycophants. It's not new to anyone who pays and kind of attention.

vidarh 1y ago

Why? Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators, 2) Statute of Anne, the birth of modern copyright law, protected printers - that is "big businesss" over creators anyway, so even that has largely always been a fiction. But it is also increasingly dubious that the public gets a good deal out of copyright law anyway. > From artists and authors not publishing their works publicly The vast majority of creators have never been able to get remotely close to make a living from their creative work, and instead often when factoring in time lose money hand over fist trying to get their works noticed.

bryanrasmussen 1y ago
I generally let it slide because these copyright discussions tend to be about America, and as such it can be assumed American law and what it inherits from British law is what pertains. >Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators, yes, in the U.S in the EU creators have moral rights to their works and the law is to protect their interests. There are actually moral rights and rights of exploitation, in EU you can transfer the latter but not the former. >But it is also increasingly dubious that the public gets a good deal out of copyright law anyway. In the EU's view of copyright the public doesn't need to get a good deal, the creators of copyrighted works do.
- vidarh 1y ago
  > There are actually moral rights and rights of exploitation, in EU you can transfer the latter but not the former. And when we talk about copyright we generally talk about the rights of exploitation, where the rationale used today is about the advancement of arts and sciences - a public benefit. There's a reason the name is English is copy-right, where the other Germanic languages focuses more on the work - in the Anglosphere the notion of moral rights as separate from rights of exploitation is well outside the mainstream. > In the EU's view of copyright the public doesn't need to get a good deal, the creators of copyrighted works do. Most individual nations copyright law still does uphold the pretence of being for the public good, however. Without that pretence, there is no moral basis for restricting the rights of the public the way copyright law does. But it has nevertheless been abundantly clear all the way back to the Statute of Anne that any talk of either public goods or rights of exploitation for the creator are excuses, and that these laws if anything mostly exist for the protection of business interests.

daedrdev 1y ago

copyright is the backbone of modern media empires. It both allows small creators and massive corporations to seek rent on works, but since the works are under copyright for a century its quite nice to corporations