5 ms·

Why do you think copyright should be abolished?

logicchains 3y ago
Because it does far more harm than good. Enforcement of copyright requires all kinds of authoritarianism and infringement upon people's rights to use their own property/devices, which hardly seems a fair trade just for more entertainment media. Especially when there are enough creatives out there who do the work purely for passion that'd we'd never run out of media to consume even if nobody could use copyright to profit from it.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Copyright also applies on media that is not for entertainment or "consumption". Where would the money come from to pay for important news reporting, for example? There are a lot of people in this world who are not hackers and have other needs.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    >Where would the money come from to pay for important news reporting, for example Governments and private individuals already produce plenty of news without relying on income from copyright. The BBC is publicly funded.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      As somebody who grew up in the time of government-only media, let me assure you that you don't want the world to regress to that. Copyrighted information is better than no information.
      - nativeit 3y ago
        I broadly agree with the underlying sentiment, however this is a classic false dichotomy espoused by people and interests heavily invested in maintaining the status quo. I would argue that news organizations like ProPublica could exist without copyright, and does not rely on public funds. NPR and PBS are publicly subsidized, but not to the extent that they are obliged to operate as state media (or can even be credibly accused of bowing under pressure from government actors). It’s a convenient myth that copyright is somehow inevitable or necessary, or that it fosters creative endeavors.
- renzobanks 3y ago
  clearly this person does not make a living from things that they made that are protected by copyright laws.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    Clearly this person thinks people base their moral opinions solely on what would make them more money. "It's impossible to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."
  - prepend 3y ago
    It makes sense as if someone thinks that copyright is unethical, they wouldn’t want to make a living from it. Would you also complain that someone doesn’t understand bombmaking because they aren’t using it for their livelihood?
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > Especially when there are enough creatives out there who do the work purely for passion that'd we'd never run out of media to consume even if nobody could use copyright to profit from it. “Because I think people should work for free to entertain me”
  - logicchains 3y ago
    It's not about what I think; it's a fact that there's an abundance of creative media produced by people not getting paid for it.
    - beej71 3y ago
      I'm looking for free, modern feature-length sci-fi movies and novels produced by passionate people who don't want to get paid. Where do I find them?
      - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
        > I'm looking for free, modern feature-length sci-fi movies and novels produced by passionate people who don't want to get paid. For movies: here is one (a Megaman fan film): > http://bluecorestudios.com/videos/?watch=videos_10_megaman-fan-film http://bluecorestudios.com/videos/?watch=videos_10_megaman-f... > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcLqmH77g_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcLqmH77g_s See also https://megaman.fandom.com/wiki/Mega_Man_(Fan_Film) https://megaman.fandom.com/wiki/Mega_Man_(Fan_Film)
        beej71 3y ago
        Well, that's one.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Aurornis 3y ago
      If this was true, people wouldn’t try to pirate copyrighted content because they’d be busy with this supposed abundance of free creative media. People pirate because they want content that other people produced with the expectation of getting paid. People like getting paid for their work. I suspect you do, too, but you think that people who do creative work don’t deserve to be paid because you are the consumer.
- chefandy 3y ago
  Sure, if we lived in a society that valued people enough intrinsically to support them regardless of their value in the capitalist marketplace... But we don't. Too bad people need to eat and pay their rent. Lots of drugs cost little to manufacture but lots to develop. Ideally the costs for robust research and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals would be shared by all people equally because we all benefit from improving the human condition... But they're not. And since pharmaceutical companies can't just blow a whole bunch of money on research for things that will bring them no money, they charge enough for the pill to make their money back, and unfortunately, usually, far beyond that until it's able to be made generically. I believe that windfall profits from prices that keep people from treatment are wrong. But allowing everyone to make new drugs developed by other pharmaceutical companies to sell at generic prices would just mean those companies wouldn't research new drugs... Win? Not without a way in-place to replace that research. And anyone considering some glib argument questioning the value of new drugs, you're full of shit. Not every new drug is a Viagra knock-off. Lots of people in the tech crowd have adopted this convenient romantic notion that real art must be non-commercial, and that all real art is made by people toiling in obscurity, driven solely by the need for self-expression and the distant hope that they'll someday be discovered, become famous, and have their name in art history books... Or even that hobby art could replace professional art. That, of course, is complete bullshit. Art is no different than any other intellectual pursuit and equating VFX artists for AAA game titles and professional session musicians to weekend basement studio oil painters and people with hobby bands is like equating immigration attorneys writing depositions and technical writers to people who are serious about their personal fanfic blogs. Saying we need to abolish copyright means the things that are copyrighted have enough value to want; demanding we do that without first demanding an alternate way to support people who do intellectual work is a self-absorbed demand for free stuff. Saying they should get another job and continue to produce that valuable work for free— like a public slave in ancient Rome— is not an answer any ethical adult could entertain in good faith.
  - chefandy 3y ago
    [flagged]
Findeton 3y ago
Because it's not private property. When something is a private property, that means that if I have 100% of it, you have 0% of it. That doesn't happen with, for example, songs. I can have 100% of a song and listen to it as much as I want and that doesn't mean you can't have and listen that song as well. Copyright (and patents) are a limited monopoly granted by the state, thus they are inherently immoral, as everything that any government does, as they do that by the use of force. Other way to look at it is that ideas are not scarce at all and it's copyright/patents/the government that creates scarcity where there's abundance.
Qwertious 3y ago
IMO copyright should be drastically shortened, and should possibly have a mechanism for varying the length based on the application - for instance, aerospace software can take literal decades just to be permitted for use, so if the copyright only lasts 10 years then aerospace software basically isn't covered. In contrast, perhaps the average videogame might need only five years of copyright to sufficiently incentivize their production. Hypothetically. In such a scenario, there's no one-size-fits-all solution, so we need a different system than just a flat copyright duration.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  While I agree in theory, I'm afraid that disputes over what is sufficient in what industry would result in 10 years for one kind of work, 40 for another, and 5 for yet another. I would accept a one-size-fits-all solution in the form of a lowest-common-denominator which simultaneously is much closer to the original US copyright term. Surely 15 years of monopoly privileges after publishing - or 20 years after writing/making, whichever is sooner - is sufficient. (No extensions, although I might accept something like Bill Willingham's proposal of giving licensees 10 years total and max [1].) If that's not enough incentive then the prospective author isn't confident that the work would sell well in the best conditions, and a government should not further distort a market to make an at-best-poorly-selling product sell well. [1] https://billwillingham.substack.com/p/willingham-sends-fables-into-the https://billwillingham.substack.com/p/willingham-sends-fable...
  - redwall_hp 3y ago
    It should also be strictly limited to original works, not vaguely applied to "derivatives." A cover of a song should be considered an original work, and not infringing upon the original. As should a song that uses sections of melody or samples. I'd also say that durations should be shorter than the original terms, due to the much higher volume of works produced today and greater accessibility of those tools. 5-10 from publication at the most. After all, a massive supply of something with a relatively static demand simply means it has a lower value than it once did.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tomjen3 3y ago
We only have it to promote useful arts and science. With more books than you can read in a lifetime is copyright necessary? Is it the most useful way to ensure more art is created considering the cost?

Because it does far more harm than good. Enforcement of copyright requires all kinds of authoritarianism and infringement upon people's rights to use their own property/devices, which hardly seems a fair trade just for more entertainment media. Especially when there are enough creatives out there who do the work purely for passion that'd we'd never run out of media to consume even if nobody could use copyright to profit from it.

carlosjobim 3y ago
Copyright also applies on media that is not for entertainment or "consumption". Where would the money come from to pay for important news reporting, for example? There are a lot of people in this world who are not hackers and have other needs.
- logicchains 3y ago
  >Where would the money come from to pay for important news reporting, for example Governments and private individuals already produce plenty of news without relying on income from copyright. The BBC is publicly funded.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    As somebody who grew up in the time of government-only media, let me assure you that you don't want the world to regress to that. Copyrighted information is better than no information.
    - nativeit 3y ago
      I broadly agree with the underlying sentiment, however this is a classic false dichotomy espoused by people and interests heavily invested in maintaining the status quo. I would argue that news organizations like ProPublica could exist without copyright, and does not rely on public funds. NPR and PBS are publicly subsidized, but not to the extent that they are obliged to operate as state media (or can even be credibly accused of bowing under pressure from government actors). It’s a convenient myth that copyright is somehow inevitable or necessary, or that it fosters creative endeavors.
renzobanks 3y ago
clearly this person does not make a living from things that they made that are protected by copyright laws.
- logicchains 3y ago
  Clearly this person thinks people base their moral opinions solely on what would make them more money. "It's impossible to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."
- prepend 3y ago
  It makes sense as if someone thinks that copyright is unethical, they wouldn’t want to make a living from it. Would you also complain that someone doesn’t understand bombmaking because they aren’t using it for their livelihood?
Aurornis 3y ago
> Especially when there are enough creatives out there who do the work purely for passion that'd we'd never run out of media to consume even if nobody could use copyright to profit from it. “Because I think people should work for free to entertain me”
- logicchains 3y ago
  It's not about what I think; it's a fact that there's an abundance of creative media produced by people not getting paid for it.
  - beej71 3y ago
    I'm looking for free, modern feature-length sci-fi movies and novels produced by passionate people who don't want to get paid. Where do I find them?
    - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
      > I'm looking for free, modern feature-length sci-fi movies and novels produced by passionate people who don't want to get paid. For movies: here is one (a Megaman fan film): > http://bluecorestudios.com/videos/?watch=videos_10_megaman-fan-film http://bluecorestudios.com/videos/?watch=videos_10_megaman-f... > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcLqmH77g_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcLqmH77g_s See also https://megaman.fandom.com/wiki/Mega_Man_(Fan_Film) https://megaman.fandom.com/wiki/Mega_Man_(Fan_Film)
      - beej71 3y ago
        Well, that's one.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aurornis 3y ago
    If this was true, people wouldn’t try to pirate copyrighted content because they’d be busy with this supposed abundance of free creative media. People pirate because they want content that other people produced with the expectation of getting paid. People like getting paid for their work. I suspect you do, too, but you think that people who do creative work don’t deserve to be paid because you are the consumer.
chefandy 3y ago
Sure, if we lived in a society that valued people enough intrinsically to support them regardless of their value in the capitalist marketplace... But we don't. Too bad people need to eat and pay their rent. Lots of drugs cost little to manufacture but lots to develop. Ideally the costs for robust research and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals would be shared by all people equally because we all benefit from improving the human condition... But they're not. And since pharmaceutical companies can't just blow a whole bunch of money on research for things that will bring them no money, they charge enough for the pill to make their money back, and unfortunately, usually, far beyond that until it's able to be made generically. I believe that windfall profits from prices that keep people from treatment are wrong. But allowing everyone to make new drugs developed by other pharmaceutical companies to sell at generic prices would just mean those companies wouldn't research new drugs... Win? Not without a way in-place to replace that research. And anyone considering some glib argument questioning the value of new drugs, you're full of shit. Not every new drug is a Viagra knock-off. Lots of people in the tech crowd have adopted this convenient romantic notion that real art must be non-commercial, and that all real art is made by people toiling in obscurity, driven solely by the need for self-expression and the distant hope that they'll someday be discovered, become famous, and have their name in art history books... Or even that hobby art could replace professional art. That, of course, is complete bullshit. Art is no different than any other intellectual pursuit and equating VFX artists for AAA game titles and professional session musicians to weekend basement studio oil painters and people with hobby bands is like equating immigration attorneys writing depositions and technical writers to people who are serious about their personal fanfic blogs. Saying we need to abolish copyright means the things that are copyrighted have enough value to want; demanding we do that without first demanding an alternate way to support people who do intellectual work is a self-absorbed demand for free stuff. Saying they should get another job and continue to produce that valuable work for free— like a public slave in ancient Rome— is not an answer any ethical adult could entertain in good faith.
- chefandy 3y ago
  [flagged]

Findeton 3y ago

Because it's not private property. When something is a private property, that means that if I have 100% of it, you have 0% of it. That doesn't happen with, for example, songs. I can have 100% of a song and listen to it as much as I want and that doesn't mean you can't have and listen that song as well. Copyright (and patents) are a limited monopoly granted by the state, thus they are inherently immoral, as everything that any government does, as they do that by the use of force. Other way to look at it is that ideas are not scarce at all and it's copyright/patents/the government that creates scarcity where there's abundance.

Qwertious 3y ago

IMO copyright should be drastically shortened, and should possibly have a mechanism for varying the length based on the application - for instance, aerospace software can take literal decades just to be permitted for use, so if the copyright only lasts 10 years then aerospace software basically isn't covered. In contrast, perhaps the average videogame might need only five years of copyright to sufficiently incentivize their production. Hypothetically. In such a scenario, there's no one-size-fits-all solution, so we need a different system than just a flat copyright duration.

hn_acker 3y ago
While I agree in theory, I'm afraid that disputes over what is sufficient in what industry would result in 10 years for one kind of work, 40 for another, and 5 for yet another. I would accept a one-size-fits-all solution in the form of a lowest-common-denominator which simultaneously is much closer to the original US copyright term. Surely 15 years of monopoly privileges after publishing - or 20 years after writing/making, whichever is sooner - is sufficient. (No extensions, although I might accept something like Bill Willingham's proposal of giving licensees 10 years total and max [1].) If that's not enough incentive then the prospective author isn't confident that the work would sell well in the best conditions, and a government should not further distort a market to make an at-best-poorly-selling product sell well. [1] https://billwillingham.substack.com/p/willingham-sends-fables-into-the https://billwillingham.substack.com/p/willingham-sends-fable...
- redwall_hp 3y ago
  It should also be strictly limited to original works, not vaguely applied to "derivatives." A cover of a song should be considered an original work, and not infringing upon the original. As should a song that uses sections of melody or samples. I'd also say that durations should be shorter than the original terms, due to the much higher volume of works produced today and greater accessibility of those tools. 5-10 from publication at the most. After all, a massive supply of something with a relatively static demand simply means it has a lower value than it once did.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tomjen3 3y ago

We only have it to promote useful arts and science. With more books than you can read in a lifetime is copyright necessary? Is it the most useful way to ensure more art is created considering the cost?