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

Technology

59669 readers
3908 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
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
757
Top EU Court Says There’s No Right To Online Anonymity, Because Copyright Is More Important (www.techdirt.com)
submitted 5 months ago by General_Effort to c/technology
122 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

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

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

Ok, let's say the copyright retention fee is only paid when it's above 1k, I.e. after 10 years.

[–] Soggy 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You are desperate to give rich fucks an avenue to maintain an advantage over everyone else.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

No. I want to give small creators a tool to stop their work being stolen in the short term.

But I also want to force copyright monopolists to pay ever increasing tax on the property they hold that should really be in the public domain.

My proposal also means orphan works no longer exist.

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

Like, maybe tiered to something like 5 years: pay what it costs now, 10 years: 10 times that cost, and 15 years: 100 times, with a hard cap at 15? I could get behind that.

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

5 years: pay what it costs now

It doesn't cost anything to copyright something. You just automatically own the copyright to something you create.

(This may vary outside the US; I'm not familiar with international copyright law.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I thought there was a registration fee for copyright, but I think I mixed it up with trademark...

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 2 points 5 months ago

Yeah. Something like that. Maybe don't even need a cap.

If you pay $2^n each year n to retain copyright then by year 30 you are into the billions.