• Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not for over half a century, once Disney lobbied the US federal government to extend temporary monopolies to egregious lengths. The point of intellectual property rights is to build a robust public domain, so every year of every extension is a year denied to the public.

      This has been forgotten or ignored by the ownership class with Sony and Nintendo prosecuting use and public archival abandonware games the way Disney goes after nursery murals.

      So no, we would be better off with no IP laws all than the current laws we have, and the ownership class routinely screw artists, developers and technicians for their cut of their share of the profits in what is known as Hollywood Accounting. And the record labels will cheat any artist or performer who doesn’t have a Hammerhead Lawyer (or bigger) to ensure their contract is kosher.

      So no. Come with me to Barbary; we’ll ply there up and down. 🏴‍☠️

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      4 months ago

      No. Here, let me introduce you to things like libraries, and education.

      And, again, he’s not an asshole for being right. He’s an asshole for having no sympathy for the loss of what should have been an archival giant.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That depends on if you see the current copyright system as far to start with. The current system is a far cry from how it was created and was co-opted by companies like Disney to maintain monopolies on their IP for MUCH longer than the system was supposed to protect.

      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        This. If I’m not mistaken, the system was meant to operate like a hybrid between patents and trademarks. Iirc, things weren’t originally under copyright by default and you had to regularly renew your copyright in order to keep it. Most of the media in the public domain is a result of companies failing to properly claim or renew copyright before the laws were changed. My understanding is that the reason for this was because the intent was to protect you from having your IP stolen while it was profitable to you, but then release said IP into the public domain once it was no longer profitable (aka wasn’t worth renewing copyright on).

        Then corpos spent a lot of money rewriting the system and now practically everything even remotely creative is under copyright that’s effectively indefinite.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        I have talked to a few published authors (most unsuccessful) and listened to a few successful published authors, and they all say the same as you. Some of them (esp. successful) give away free books on their website. They just want people to read their books.

        The ones complaining here aren’t the authors, but the publishers.

        • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, even the big names tend to not care much as long as nobody else is profiting off of their work. Agents and publishers, they tend to get right snippy about piracy lol.

          Mind you, there is a segment of working authors that do suffer in their ability to go from a part time, almost hobbyist situation into a proper career of it. They tend to see the lack of sales as more of a problem, but they tend to be younger and didn’t ever see how impossible breaking in to traditional publishing was. It’s easy to look at your self published income and think “oh, if people had to buy these, I’d be making a living at this instead of it being barely enough to cover expenses for writing”. But, most of the time, back before self publishing was actually a valid and useful route, they wouldn’t have been selling anything, they’d be hoping for an agent to get their first sale for them.

          And I’ll never tell anyone that they can’t profit from their own ideas and labor, and expect anyone consuming it to pay up. Authors that object, that’s fine by me (and I actually don’t pirate their stuff). But like you said, most writers would rather someone read and enjoy for free rather than not read at all.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Copyright serves a very useful purpose. It’s just been twisted into something it wasn’t meant to be.

        • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          You misunderstand me. When I say, “copyright is bullshit” I don’t mean that I don’t like it, or that it doesn’t work. I mean it’s bullshit in the same way that the crystal healing or mushroom cancer therapy is bullshit.

          You cannot steal an idea, it’s impossible. So creating laws that punish people for doing things like copying a digital file doesn’t make sense. Copyright supposedly was created to create an incentive for artists and inventors to make cool and enriching stuff.

          But what it actually does is protects business savvy people and allows them to game the system, get first mover advantage over all others, and then punish any potential competitors in that space.

          As if nobody was creating artwork or inventing useful devices before copyright law came into being.

          Just because something is useful doesn’t make it good, atomic bombs are useful, factory farming is useful.

          I think the only thing people should be protected from as a creator is fraud. You can copy a person’s works and modify or distribute them in any manner you see fit, as long as it’s clear that you are not the original creator. You cannot claim to be them or to be affiliated with them unless you actually are.

          That is what the principle of copyleft is all about. If copyright worked in principle, then you should see millions of individual creators enriched and protected by it.

          But you don’t see that, instead, a few giant mega corps and super wealthy tycoons own and control enormous swaths of “intellectual property” and small time creators struggle to make ends meet and are sued into oblivion by the same powerful groups.

          Sure it’s great for boosting wealth and GDP, but that boost does not apply to most of the population, it applies to the tiny elite that has now captures enormous segments of the market and fight tooth and nail to keep it that way.

          Copyright is structurally flawed, it doesn’t work because it cannot work. It’s fundamentally based on a the nonsensical concept of “intellectual property” which as I said at the beginning, is bullshit.

          • ripcord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m not sure I misunderstood you at all.

            Copy left, incieldentally, is a form of copyright.

            • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              It only exists to counter the existing framework. In an ideal world, nobody would honor or respect the idea of “intellectual property” and hence, only fraud would be punished.

          • ripcord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            100%.

            The whole point was to “promote the useful arts” by allowing creators SOME time to make money off their work. People would be way less likely to write a book, a news artucle, make a movie, etc if someone else could just instantly sell copies and you couldn’t support yourself with the work.

            But the whole point was to give you enough protections to make it worth your while.

            If you can’t make enough money off of the work in 14 (or 28) years for it to have been worth it, then it’s not worth it.

            No one has ever said “if this isn’t going to give me the exclusive right to make copies for 80 years after my death, then there’s no point making it”. And that was the only point to copyright. Doing the minimum to allow people to realistically make new stuff.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Exactly. This was created like 200 years ago when books took years to print and distribute. Since information travels much more quickly now, a work is probably going to succeed or fail in the first 5 years. So drop 14 to 10 and it’s probably more than enough.

              Companies can still use trademark indefinitely, so they still get their brand protections. Screw modern copyright.