this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
117 points (88.7% liked)

politics

19243 readers
2883 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 48 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The idea of copyright itself isn't a bad thing IMO - reward creatives by allowing them exclusivity over their works for an amount of time sufficient to recoup costs and make some profit.

Problem is monopolistic mega-corporations screwed it all up in the name of profits by extending copyright decades past its original intention, and by copyrighting not just the works but even the means of accessing any of them.

It's no secret that the reuse of public domain inspirations was how many of the largest entertainment companies and largest publishers got to where they are, so of course they pulled the ladder to ensure it'd be a whole lot harder to follow them.

Copyright is broken, and you only need follow the money to see who broke it.

[–] CaptainSpaceman 19 points 5 months ago

Medical patents are like 20 years, that should be the upper bound for all copyrights, patents, etc

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Maybe for art and only in the case it's individual artists that own it.

And copyrights should be redefined a bit (like foss licences).

But nothing should get you 20 years of exclusive rights, that is just not right.

Ppl will quote medical research, but that is the worst of copyright examples.
And I think medical research should be under public domain, non-profits or gov agencies researching with public money and not allowed to copyright the products.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I personally disagree. If you write a song, why can't I learn it and sing it? If you build a guitar, and I take it, then you can't use it, but if I just learn to sing your song then I'm not depriving you of anything. Why should you be able to prevent me from singing what I want when it doesn't harm you?

The idea that you should get to control your creative works and no one should be allowed to touch them feels to me like it's just appeasing control freaks while costing massive amounts in terms of remixing, and creativity.

While rewarding artists is a good idea, in the digital age, copyright is a fundamentally bad way of doing it. The entire core concept of copyright exists because unlike physical goods, information can be copied and replicated nearly infinitely for zero cost, and when something is ubiquitous, capitalism says that its value is $0. So rather than embrace the fact that information now has effectively zero cost to distribute to everyone once it's digitized, we spent billions on lawyers and laws, and engineers and technological walls, all just to create artificial scarcity so that it would have value again.

There is a fundamental difference between the properties and behaviour of information, and the properties and behaviour of physical matter, and at a core level copyright is a hamfisted way of trying to mash digital information distribution into a system designed for the distribution of physical goods.

[–] Grimy 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Here's a scenario: You make a song but your YouTube channel has 6 subscribers. It's a good song and the views are slowly going up, this might be your big break. A week later, just when the views start inching towards the 5 digits, Drake comes out with the exact same song. Your version fades into obscurity, he never even mentions you, he makes millions off your single. It's not exactly fair.

I think copyrights are currently much too strong and easy to abuse. Fair use should be expanded and the time limits greatly reduced but doing away with the whole concept isn't the best solution imo.

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

Absolutely fair scenario, I'm not advocating to abandon copyright with nothing to replace it.

The fundamental structure of copyright right now, is one based around granting ownership and exclusivity rights, but only the second part is flawed, the exclusivity rights part.

A copyright system that makes sense in the digital age is an ownership and attribution system, whereby in that scenario, Drake would acknowledge that it's your song and then a certain portion of his proceeds from that song would end up going to you automatically. If he didn't he would face a regulator / court / arbitration system that could impose massive penalties to disincentivize non acknowledgement.

It doesn't really change any of the economics of live art, but for digital art, rather than everyone paying for different subscriptions and having all the profits go to enriching middle men with exclusive, non competitive contracts, everyone would always have free access to everything and you'd have the streaming and viewership numbers etc influence how much money the government or an arm's length arts agency / crown corporation is paying out to artists.

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

Well said. Realistically we need a completely new system that's more in tune with the digital age and puts society first while incentivizing small time artists.

The best would probably be to couple it with profits, so any artist which makes more than X amount using an other persons work needs to hire lawyers and figure out who he has to pay or get sued.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Copyright is a classic case of "The few benefit at the expense of the many". Ideas, medicine, innovation, culture, these should all be shared as widely as possible as quickly as possible to all of humanity. Especially when we can copy those things for no production cost unlike the times of the printing press. But somebody realized they could paywall it and get rich instead.

Copyright is an antiquated idea whose time has come to arrive on the chopping block. Any politician who aims to curtail or abolish copyright gets my vote.

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

Yes, copyrights aren't that dissimilar to monopolies, and it's holding humanity back.

Instead of sharing 'the wealth' and let everyone build on it we keep finding ways to concentrate it.

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

Copyright is classified as a legally enforced monopoly. So are patents.

Personally I think both have been made overly long in duration and broad in scope. But without some exclusive period I can't see things like TV shows, movies, books, or games being made with even 1% of the current quality or quantity.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago

"Finally, my invention of the toilet paper holder is complete. And no, I will not share it with the world, I'll patient it. After all, I didn't do it for others, I did it for myself, even if all my needs are already met."

[–] SuckMyWang 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yep. Copyright protects stuff like open source software (GPL license and others) and ensures it stays open and creators get credit. This article is making the case for AI to steal all that for itself. Copyright isn't inherently a bad thing, the way it's used and abused is. You can thank Disney for making copyrights seem like a negative thing all because they wanted to hold on to their damn mouse for centuries. They themselves also profited (and still do) off of works they didn't originally create, like Bambi, Cinderella, etc.

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

Yup. AI firms have $ billions at stake.

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

AI firms would directly benefit from tighter copyright laws, it guarantees them a soft monopoly and kills any open source solution that can be run by individuals for free.

They will gladly pay Getty, Deviant art, Reddit, etc, if it means they can charge a monthly subscription to most businesses and individuals.

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

Except for all of the copyright they have violated and not paid for. (This is a broad brush.)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago
[–] blazera 1 points 5 months ago

Just get rid of all copyright, its exclusively used for harming creators and enabling rich people to own ideas they didnt create.