3 ms·

So, the original purpose of copyright was to ensure that content creators were encouraged to release things for the public at large. This in turn is a two-part

So, the original purpose of copyright was to ensure that content creators were encouraged to release things for the public at large. This in turn is a two-part process: first, creating content for consumption, and second, distributing that content. I don't think it should be even slightly controversial to suggest that we've democratized and solved the second part of that problem (provided things like net neutrality pass, but that's a larger issue). There is no reason that a creator who wants to put out content into the public domain can't do so (again, barring government censorship or what have you--arguably not even then) in a way that is likely to be preserved into perpituity. It's the first part of the problem which is what people will wring hands about, refusing to believe that creators would ever spontaneously decide to make something for no apparent and immediate payoff (fanfiction and deviant artists and HN commentators clearly notwithstanding) and put it out there. With things like DA, with Patreon, with Kickstarter, with Steam Greenlight, with Amazon and everything else, it's clear that we're almost done solving the first issue--again, if you believe it's an issue at all.

chc 12y ago
I feel like you're putting this in a way that ignores the historical context in which copyright arose. Copyright came about in response to too much copying thanks to the printing press. The ultimate purpose of copyright was to encourage the progress of the arts and learning, yes — but the immediate purpose was was to make sure that authors would be fairly compensated for their work, instead of printers being able to just take any work they could get their hands on and profit off it without the creator of the work having any say in how his work was used or claim on the fruits of his labor. The idea was that authors were skilled workers practicing a valuable craft, and that the mere fact that distributors could ignore them in practice did not mean they should be entitled to do so with impunity. Nobody ever though that nobody would create anything without copyright. The idea was simply that skilled creators were not being duly compensated for their work, and that if they were fairly compensated, they would have more time to devote to creating as well as more incentive to continue.

chc 12y ago

I feel like you're putting this in a way that ignores the historical context in which copyright arose. Copyright came about in response to too much copying thanks to the printing press. The ultimate purpose of copyright was to encourage the progress of the arts and learning, yes — but the immediate purpose was was to make sure that authors would be fairly compensated for their work, instead of printers being able to just take any work they could get their hands on and profit off it without the creator of the work having any say in how his work was used or claim on the fruits of his labor. The idea was that authors were skilled workers practicing a valuable craft, and that the mere fact that distributors could ignore them in practice did not mean they should be entitled to do so with impunity. Nobody ever though that nobody would create anything without copyright. The idea was simply that skilled creators were not being duly compensated for their work, and that if they were fairly compensated, they would have more time to devote to creating as well as more incentive to continue.