5 ms·
copyright is bullshit
by davidguetta 2mo ago
copyright is bullshit
- aetherspawn 2mo agoCopyright is what stops someone from copy+pasting a book that took years to write, then selling it $1 cheaper than the original author on Amazon or whatever and making a margin 1 million percent higher than the original author. Imagine a society without copyright… only physically intensive jobs could make money because everything else would be pirated, ripped-off or free. Thus, only those who are financially independent could afford to publish. Because the world really needs more rich class propaganda…
- smolder 2mo agoRight, it's about incentivising intellectual work. While I have big issues with the copyright system, like all the extensions lobbied for by Disney and friends, it did enable a lot of good work to happen.
- skinfaxi 2mo ago> it did enable a lot of good work to happen. How do we know that when we don't have a copy of the world without this regime? How much more and greater works could have been produced without such a repressive system? A really successful work becomes part of the culture, and remixing, derivatives and other modes of integrating cultural artifacts are prohibited. Why should we allow corporations to own our culture?
- andsoitis 2mo agoYou’re arguing that freely remixing original work will give rise to greatness that’s even better than original work?
- skinfaxi 2mo agoIsn't most creative work synthesis rather than unique whole-cloth creation? Look at what happens with software when it is open sourced and allowed to be remixed freely. Are we better or worse off because of it?
- andsoitis 2mo agoThere's nothing that prevents people from remixing things that are not copyrighted and create something amazing that others are interested in or of cultural value. With open source, I should note, its remixing is in fact governed by copyright.
- satvikpendem 2mo agoWhat things are not copyrighted? Anything someone makes is immediately copyrighted. If you mean take a couple hundred years old content to remix, well, I don't find that very useful and certainly not how human history has worked all this time.
- andsoitis 2mo agoYou are right that in most countries (including the US) copyright protects a work automatically the moment it’s fixed in a tangible form. I think we’ve veered a little off the original thesis where we started which is an argument that copyright is limiting the rate or breadth or level of cultural artifacts. I have to say that I find it hard to imagine a meaningfully higher volume or level than we already see today. I mean are you worried that we’re stifling creativity? I think it is abundant and the evidence is all around us.
- ck2 2mo agoI think the idea is if "AI" can solve math proofs that humans haven't for a century then if "AI" freestyles stolen art and literature then it might create something as good if not better because of resources and processing power There might be something to that logic but art and literature doesn't obey rules like math and copyright exists to protect creators
- satvikpendem 2mo agoYes? I don't understand how this is even a question, this is exactly how it worked throughout human history.
- andsoitis 2mo agoIn what way is copyright preventing it today?
- satvikpendem 2mo agoI can't make and sell a remix of an existing IP and even in cases of free distribution it can get dicey legally.
- ragequittah 2mo agoPossibly. Sort of like how Disney remixed basically everything from existing fairy tales for decades then made it so nobody else could.
- andsoitis 2mo agoThat’s not accurate. All the Disney interpretations of pre-existing fairy tales also have takes by others, whether books, theatrical adaptations, or even movies! Take Snow White as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White So I’d be curious to hear about a counter example.
- ragequittah 2mo agoI guess I haven't looked into it much, but the chilling effect of having Disney lawyers scrutinize your project would be enough to deter most people. The slew of content coming out after these properties enter public domain from Disney is telling. But it's also just the irony that Disney used other people's stories to build their empire but then fought extremely hard so that nobody could use theirs for as long as society would possibly hold out (which in my opinion was way beyond the point of reason).
- smolder 2mo agoYeah, I can't AB test against a world without copyright at all, but I think there's sufficient evidence to believe that a lot of stuff would never have gotten done without copyright to ensure it could be done gainfully. The importance of striking a balance between incentivising creation and enriching culture was why the original copyright term was dramatically shorter. The modern term of owners life + 80 years or whatever it is, is clearly ridiculous. 20 years before entering public domain seems pretty reasonable. There's unfortunately also some pressure against people using legitimate public domain works. E.g. youtubers getting copyright strikes for playing public domain music because it's too similar to a specific copyrighted recording.
- account42 2mo ago> Yeah, I can't AB test against a world without copyright at all, but I think there's sufficient evidence to believe that a lot of stuff would never have gotten done without copyright to ensure it could be done gainfully. The problem is that there is also a lot of stuff that never got done because of copyright. And the extend to which works that were funded by exploiting copyright would not have been funded in any other way is also questionable.
- deaton 2mo agoGo read a few fanfics and tell me you still think that theres added value.
- satvikpendem 2mo agoQuite rich coming from a creator apparently, only certain creations are deemed worthy by you, seems like it invalidates your entire stance on the sanctity of art that all these pro-copyright people seem to hold.
- Morromist 2mo agoThat's oversimplifying things. Copyright doesn't actually stop me from pirating a book or an mp3 right now. Heck, I'll just download a book right now. Bam. Done. Some things are so difficult to keep from being pirated, such a photographs, that saying the copyright system protects photographers strikes me as a bit silly. It does protect some commercial photographers if a magazine wants to sell their photo sometimes, but that's a very very small slice of all the photos in copyright that are being shared online right now. Also there are other systems that might protect an author's financials. Off the top of my head I imagine you could do a netflix model where every citizen pays some taxes to consume intellectual property like a utility. Then the goverment finds a way to measure what is being consumed and gives each author a share based on the rate of consumption. In fact the "intellegence is a ultility" ramblings of Sam Altmen sort-of point in this direction. But that's just one idea thought up early in the morning when its too hot to sleep properly. I'm sure there are many others.
- Jensson 2mo ago> It does protect some commercial photographers if a magazine wants to sell their photo sometimes, but that's a very very small slice of all the photos in copyright that are being shared online right now. That is a very small slice thanks to copyrights. Without copyrights then corporations stealing from the small guy like this would be the majority of it.
- account42 2mo ago> Also there are other systems that might protect an author's financials. Off the top of my head I imagine you could do a netflix model where every citizen pays some taxes to consume intellectual property like a utility. Then the goverment finds a way to measure what is being consumed and gives each author a share based on the rate of consumption. We already have these - CD taxes, government grants funded by general taxes, GEMA in Germany, even TV licenses. They all universally suck and are extremely unfair in who gets paid by them.
- skinfaxi 2mo ago> Thus, only those who are financially independent could afford to publish. Because the world really needs more rich class propaganda… Yes, all the rich class propaganda being pushed by open source developers working on software in their free time.
- Lerc 2mo agoHow many times were hugely popular books rejected before a publisher decided they were worthy? Copyright far more protects the wealthy than the good. They don't need to sell your book, they just need to own the book that people are buying right now. Giving your book a chance to sell would dectract from those sales. If there were no copyright anyone trying to sell the book $1 cheaper would be undercut by someone selling $1 cheaper them them, and so on. The financial incentive to do that goes away. People then choose to distribute based on different incentives, like the fact that they have seen something worthy that others should see. We have almost completely lost that today because the financial incentive doesn't care what it is as long as you buy it. That might lead to a world dominated by an optimisation for whatever it takes to get you engaged, or worse, addicted. That world might really suck. There needs to be a way to support the creation of art. Copyright lets a few corporations decide the subset of available art is seen enough and available to pay for (in the hope that maybe some of the patment gets to the creator). It is not a system that works in the modern world.
- freejazz 2mo agoWell, there is nothing to distribute if the author is not incentivized to write... which you seemed to skip past.
- Lerc 2mo agoIndeed, perhaps I should have said There needs to be a way to support the creation of art.
- deaton 2mo agoGreat, that way is called copyright. The author has the right to control who has the rights to distribute their work, and can require compensation in exchange for that right; what economists refer to as "selling".
- satvikpendem 2mo agoPeople have been paid artists before copyright even existed, what some might call patronage.
- WarmWash 2mo agoI can't tell if this comment is satire or not. You're speaking to the generation of pirates. What? Suddenly everyone is hanging up their high seas hat to capture the virtue signals of current sentiment?
- aetherspawn 2mo agoam I? Most guys on this forum would be younger than me and I definitely find streaming services easier and more convenient than pirating and wondering if I’m gonna catch computer AIDS.
- satvikpendem 2mo agoIt's funny because copyright only benefits the rich now. Record labels hold all the copyright to songs, same with publishers for books, Disney made sure it lasts over a hundred years. The days of copyright being held by individuals in any real sense is long gone.
- account42 2mo ago> Imagine a society without copyright We don't need to imagine, this is how human society has worked for most of the run we have had.
- klabb3 2mo agoThis reminds me of this argument with libertarians/ancaps: A: rich people pay less % in taxes than wage workers, we should close the loopholes B: but taxes are immoral to begin with A: ok, but can we do something now about the unequal enforcement? Unrealized gains, tax havens, trusts, fake charities, etc? B: well a society based on property rights… ackhully you should read this book by Mises/Rothbard/Rand
- economistbob 2mo agoNever really understood how libertarians expect to have someone making guns for their fiefdoms when there is no one to enforce property rights for said gun elements and manufactories.
- oblio 2mo agoLibertarianism is not a philosophy. It's selfishness taken to extremes and trying to find ways to justify it at a societal level. The only reason we're the top species is because we're ultra social and have culture, which is inherently a social trait (don't eat those red berries, they're poisonous). Libertarianism want all the benefits of working together with no actual thought into how that working together happens in real life, including punishment for bad behavior.
- Jensson 2mo agoYeah its wrong in very very similar ways to communism.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- economistbob 2mo agoWhat very very similar ways would that be?
- 2mo ago
- zelphirkalt 2mo agoI would be fine with abandoning copyright ... If it is done for everyone equally, and not just tech giants and VC money businesses get a free pass, while everyone else still has to follow the copyright laws. Lets go ahead and usher in an age of free information and experiencing all forms of human expression for everyone. But lets also come up with a way, to compensate our creative minds and our educators and artists. How about that UBI? We stand much to gain as humanity.
- reactordev 2mo agoThis. Copyright is a flawed system. There can be alternatives that allow more than 1 player to play and not create monopolies. For example. I invent a new method of power washing. I start a power washing business using new tech. I file the tech for patent and copyright-equivalent use. This is then made available to other power wash companies that wish to use the tech and be certified in it so long as a small portion of their revenue goes back to the inventor for a set amount per volume, or something similar of a metric that has a cutoff after a point. This will breed new industries, create new jobs, introduce new innovations, and allow the markets to move on from being strangled by one giant corporation.
- satvikpendem 2mo agoIsn't that just...patent licensing? But I agree that it should be a forced outcome so everyone can use it rather than waiting a ridiculous 20 years.
- account42 2mo agocopyright used against schmucks like you and me but ignored when inconvenient for bigcorp is even more bullshit