• psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well in theory the idea is that it encourages people to create more by making doing so more lucrative. May have even made some sense back in the era before digitization.

        • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah even if you are pro-copyright as a way to encourage artistic creation there is no justification for how insanely long works stay under copyright. Or for banning free filesharing of copyrighted works.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            4 months ago

            I haven’t ment anyone who supports a post life of the author copyright protection yet. IMO ~20-30 years seems solid. Enough time to express your ideas and elaborate on them, but short enough where authors will be driven to make more than one IP. That’s also more inline with what it used to be.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Right, copyright was meant to give a profit incentive to creators, but the effectively infinite copyright we have now mainly gives profit incentive to large companies who can horde creative works, like Paramount+ in the above case.

            It’s breaking the original compact where we give temporary exclusivity at the reward of more creation. Now it’s effectively permanent exclusivity, with creativity locked up by which obese monster can sit on the biggest hoard of treasure

        • seaQueue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          But if copyright didn’t generate profit for 3-4 generations how will my grandchildren buy yachts?!

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t know about theory, more of the retrocon. If it was really there to encourage innovation we would have ironclad caselaw that prevented any artist from not getting properly paid. I take your meaning however.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Lemmy: copyright is bad

    Also Lemmy: LLMs are evil because they use data that was put on the internet and anyone could have read.

    Maintain a consistent position. I want copyright to be over. That means for everything every-it and everyone. From your local sewing circle, to children in refugee camps, to awful dictators, to LLMs, to hypothetical alien life forms living among us. Everyone! No exceptions. Information should be free, culture should be borrowed, derivative works should be praised.

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      No, it is consistent. Because it is not about the law itself, but about it being applied in a double standard. If a random person copies a product made by an industry, the law will punish them. If the industry copies work of random people, its fine and a sign of progress.

      I would like a copyright to be nontransferable, bound to the individuals that created it, and limited for about 10 years or so (depending on what it is), to give the creators some way to earn a reward back, while also encouraging to create new stuff.

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

        Fair point. It is consistent, in a shitty horrible way, but it is there.

        And yes I do agree. If someone would make a copyright system that promised the creator would get paid and was reasonable in duration I would support it. Yes, I do think creatives should have control over their work and be paid for it. The nuts and bolts of how that can be achieved I admit I am not sure of, but I am confident better legal minds than mine can work it out. However, given that no country is going to build such a system I don’t support copyright in any form.

        Corny capitalism is the worst fucking way of doing anything. It is better to have literally no system than that.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Huh, quite a discussion here. I’m no fan of copyright (arr!) but I feel like the pro-cooyright folks make the better points here.

    It made me remember a few years back, and correct me if I’m misremembering, Fortnight was caught stealing dances from black folk on (I think) TikTok and it brought into light the idea of copywriting dances. I forget how it ended, but it was a moment I felt like copyright was reasonable.

    That said, Nintendo can fuck all the way off regarding emulation, so I guess it was depends on how it’s used. Plus, a friend of mine got threats over stupidly using a copywrited image on her website (thanks Google search, ugh), but those people were just using bots to threaten small businesses into paying a fee just below the costs of a lawyer. So I’m really mixed feelings about copywrite law.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      That Fortnite case reached a settlement out of court (like most cases do).

      Also Japanese copyright law is much more strict and tightly enforced than it is in the states.