this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
757 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59666 readers
3852 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The key problem is that copyright infringement by a private individual is regarded by the court as something so serious that it negates the right to privacy. It’s a sign of the twisted values that copyright has succeeded on imposing on many legal systems. It equates the mere copying of a digital file with serious crimes that merit a prison sentence, an evident absurdity.

This is a good example of how copyright’s continuing obsession with ownership and control of digital material is warping the entire legal system in the EU. What was supposed to be simply a fair way of rewarding creators has resulted in a monstrous system of routine government surveillance carried out on hundreds of millions of innocent people just in case they copy a digital file.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] _number8_ 154 points 5 months ago (27 children)

lmao copyright isn't important

if copyright were abolished worldwide today, we'd be in a happier place. people who buy things generally want to buy from the official source anyway, those official sources might even have to cut prices or (god forbid!) have to make their services better to compete in the market

[–] MehBlah 86 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I don't want to see a end to copyright. I want it restored to what it was. Where the creator had a copyright for limited amount of time then everyone had a copyright to the work.

Now that time is beyond the amount of time that someone inspired by a copyrighted work could create some derivative of it. Unless you think someone inspired as a child would feel like bringing that inspiration to fulfilment as an elderly adult is going to happen often.

[–] Doomsider 28 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Humanity as we know it existed for ten of thousands of years without copyright. Copyright is the anti-thesis to creation. Everything humans create is iterative. Copyright along with the rest of intellectual property seeks to pervert creation for personal gain.

Art does not need copyright to survive and I would argue that intellectual property is not needed to promote the arts or science. It is designed to do the opposite which is limit creation to the benefit of the individual.

What makes this worse is the individual is now the corporation. Do you know that a lot of successful artists, particularly musicians, don't even own their own works?

Corporations benefit disproportionally by copyright. They have lobbied for decades to further pervert the flawed intention of copyright and intellectual property to the breaking point. Simply put, going down the road of trying to prove who created what was first is wrong.

Creation does not happen in a vacuum. Pretending that we create is isolation is farcical. We are great because of all those that came before us.

The telephone was invented by multiple people. The Wright brothers had European counterparts. These issues around intellectual copyright are a lot more complex than we are ready to admit.

We have billions of people now. Stop trying to pretend any idea, drawing, tune, or writing is unique. Rude wake up call, it is not.

[–] Hackworth 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Thank you, I seldom see my own thoughts laid out so clearly. As a practitioner of the Dark Arts (marketing), this union of commerce and art is a foul bargain. I think it's time the two had some time apart to work on themselves.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Copyright was never about defending the creators, its origin is the industrial revolution and it was a tool of companies to protect "their" inventions (the ones of their workers actually). It was NEVER about defending the small person who actually creates things.

[–] MehBlah 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I disagree. It was put in place so the creators of works and inventions had exclusive rights to that work or invention for 14 years with one renewal for a total of 28 years. Then the copyright passed into the public domain. It was always about protecting the creators. The companies dominance of it came later. Just who came up with the laws and when do you think it was put in place? Just a hint look at the faces on US currency.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AdrianTheFrog 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My ideal copyright would be 15 years or death of the creator or the end of sale/support, whichever is earlier. That would mean that Portal 2 has copyright and Portal doesn’t, which sounds about right.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 3 points 5 months ago (6 children)

How about an exponentially increasing fee to retain copyright?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So Disney and Nintendo can keep doing what they are doing but also the same companies can steal the work of smaller artists almost immediately?

No thanks.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So Disney and Nintendo can keep doing what they are doing

After 30 years not even Disney or Nintendo will pay a billion for exclusivity.

but also the same companies can steal the work of smaller artists almost immediately?

Let's make copyright non-transferable. For a company to retain copyright it must employ the creator.

[–] Sanctus 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

After 30 years not even Disney or Nintendo will pay a billion for exclusivity.

In October 2012, Disney acquired Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 3 points 5 months ago

To keep episode IV in copyright would cost $2^47 = $141.737 trillion

[–] Soggy 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Nah. I'd even call 15 years too long.

[–] angrystego 2 points 5 months ago

You don't pay a plumber every single time you use his work 15 yrs after his death.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

To retain copyright:-

$2^n for year n

$1 for year 1

$2 for year 2

$4 for year 3

$1k for year 10

$32k for year 15

$1m for year 20

$1bn for year 30

[–] Soggy 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Why, though? It still pointlessly favors people who already have money. Just get rid of it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago

cut prices

There you have your answer to the question you didn't ask, but you know what I mean

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I know right? The very idea of copyright is so fucking abstract, absurd and far-fetched. For the most part, it amounts to:

"NOOOOO YOU CAN'T PLACE THE ATOMS IN THIS ORDER BECAUSE ANOTHER PERSON DID IT BEFORE YOU!!!11!1!1!" (When it comes to scientific or engineering parents)

"NOOOO YOU CAN'T MAKE A SURFACE REFLECT THE PHOTONS LIKE THAT, OR EMIT THEM IN THAT PATTERN. THE RIGHT TO DO THAT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE!!!1!!1!" (When it comes to pictoric arts)

"NOOO YOU CAN'T MAKE THE AIR VIBRATE AT THOSE FREQUENCIES IN THAT PATTERN, SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE YOU AND THEY'RE PAYING ME SO YOU CAN'T DO IT TOO!!!" (Music)

"NOOO YOU CAN'T PUT LETTERS IN THAT ORDER!! THAT'S ILLEGAL, ANOTHER PERSON DID IT BEFORE!!" (Text and code)

So yeah, fuck that shit

[–] Pacattack57 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Copyright protects creators and prevents monopolies from abusing the system. Imagine you write a movie to sell and Amazon steals that exact movie but uses their resources to market it as their own and sell over seas.

You tell me in what world that sounds fair. Only a moron thinks a free market economy actually works.

Another example is assuming companies act in good faith to protect the market. History has shown that not only do corporations NOT care about rules and regulations but they actively act in the interests of investors and profits.

It is up to the courts to fix the abuse of the current copyright system and unfortunately they also act in the interests of profits.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Imagine you write a movie to sell and Amazon steals that exact movie but uses their resources to market it as their own and sell over seas

Imagine this thing actually happens because you're hired for Amazon as a screenwriter and you're paid a salary of 3k a month making shows that make Amazon 3 million a month, and Amazon, not the screenwriter, owns the rights to the show. Tell me in which world that's fair.

Only a moron thinks a free market economy actually works.

Thank you, that's why I'm a communist.

History has shown that not only do corporations NOT care about rules and regulations

"Copyright rules are necessary because corporations don't care about rules and regulations" isn't as solid an argument as you think it is

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MigratingtoLemmy 7 points 5 months ago

Becoming better at technology is the gateway to fucking with copyright. As if they're going to be able to do shit when I torrent their files over some obscure server in the developing world to over here. Fuck copyright and companies who engage in that. Every game, all kinds of media and intellectual property that these companies own should be stolen from them and distributed freely. This should then be followed by severe cyber attacks on said companies to destroy their infrastructure to the extent that they can never hold creations of artists for themselves. Fuck corporate enslavement of artists and creators. I'd much rather pay $200 a month to be distributed directly to artists than pay a single cent for a game/album provided by Microsoft/Spotify (as an example). Now, some companies are better than others. GOG until recently was something I liked (conceptually anyway, since I don't play games), and Qobuz and Tidal pay their artists better than most. I am OK with these companies. The likes of Amazon and Spotify and Microsoft should be destroyed so badly that they can no longer function in this space. We should spread the word of piracy and digital freedom away from these bastards.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Do you want corps just stealing every new idea and product, cloning it, and muscling out the original inventor without paying them a dime? Because abolishing copyright entirely would be an excellent way to do that.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

That already happens. People who research normally do it under a wage and the invention goes to the company paying the wage. If not, a small inventor doesn't have the financial means and the lawyers to fight a big company copying their idea. The small person is never defended.

[–] A_Random_Idiot 3 points 5 months ago

Someone has never seen Aliexpress..

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] foggy 3 points 5 months ago

Copyright died when information became easily accessible. It's only propped up by those who stand to profit immensely from it. The rest of us not only do not profit from it, it harms us.

[–] Couldbealeotard 2 points 5 months ago

If copyright was abolished overnight, then the corporations with enough money would control everything. The chance for an individual creator to create and control their unique art would disappear. Works of art and entertainment would forever be controlled by giant corporations.

load more comments (20 replies)