131–140 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ban lobbying and think tanks
So it shouldn't be legal to write your Congressional rep and tell them you want them to do X?
Writing them a letter is fine
The best way to reduce piracy of copyrighted works is to cut the copyright period by 75% relative to current standards. To be fair to individual living authors who hold their own copyrights, this would mean copyrights persisted 18 years past the author's death, or for 24 years after date of publication for for-hire contract jobs. This is comparable to the lifetime of technical patents, and so would allow for a reason…
> It's entirely ridiculous, for example, that a 1957 film like the Seventh Seal isn't yet in the public domain. That's way too generous. It's ridiculous that films made before 2010 aren't in the public domain. We're all going to be long dead before this stuff enters the public domain. Our culture should belong to us, not a bunch of corporations. If they want to keep making money, they should have to make new stuff in…
My teenage daughter will most likely never watch The Seventh Seal. Unless she stumbled upon it on Youtube or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. Nah, decaying is the natural state of information. It requires non-trivial effort to keep information available for reading and interpreting. Even paper, one of the best mediums for storing data over time, decomposes if not actively protected.
Humanity would be more than happy to make that effort if there was no risk of getting sued to oblivion for it. There's more than enough distributed storage capacity out there to hold it all. Copyright holders are the ones who are outright hostile to any and all preservation efforts, to the point preservation of culture is an argument for getting rid of copyright.
Oh, but you're only arguing against copyright so you can freely take others work without remuneration. IF you're a creator, and you believe that copyright shouldn't exist - everything you produce, please... put it in the public domain and see what happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even 10 years is too generous. I'd rather make it 0 instead. I said 10 years because it's what would make copyright tolerable. The right thing as far as I'm concerned is abolishing it straight up. 10 years is a reasonable compromise. That's not a reasonable compromise. Your proposal of 0 years in a nonstarter, and walking slightly back from that is still a nonstarter. It's pretty clear your prioritizing only your o…
> That's not a reasonable compromise. Your proposal of 0 years in a nonstarter, and walking slightly back from that is still a nonstarter. On the contrary. Copyright itself is a non-starter. Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. They're the ones who need to convince us to respect whatever social contract they seek to impose. They are doing such a horrible job at it that it can be argued that co…
Sure...in your fantasy land. In the real world, it's not (because, as a sibling comment noted, it's the status quo and not even a very controversial one at that).
> That's why 10 years is an exceptionally generous compromise.
Being selfish but calling it "exceptionally generous" doesn't make it so. It just means you're deluded or a liar.
>>> Remember, copyright exists at all because we allow it. The raw reality these monopolists face is that public domain is the default state of all information. We're all just pretending that we can't easily copy this stuff.
>> We're also all pretending that we can't easily kill other people (btw, we totally can, and you probably regularly operate a 3,000lb death machine).
> You're seriously comparing the killing of human beings to the copying of bits. I'm not sure I want to continue this debate.
Come on. All I was doing was show that you're confused and you don't really seem understand the implications of the arguments that you're making.
If there's any reason to not continue this "debate," it's that you're unreasonable and will likely stubbornly stick to your unreasonable position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you be pleased if that applied to all of your work too? That immediately anyone can start taking your work and making money off of it? Copyright at least makes big players pay the original creators for the rights to the works. Netflix going ahead and making money off of subscribers while paying nothing to creators would be a significantly worse situation.
Netflix subscriptions wouldn't exist in this situation, your example is flawed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. Nah, decaying is the natural state of information. It requires non-trivial effort to keep information available for reading and interpreting. Even paper, one of the best mediums for storing data over time, decomposes if not actively protected.
What does this have to do with anything? Libraries handle the preserving and sharing to the public of information. In spite of copyright, not thanks to it. Historically they literally copied one book into paper to duplicate/preserve it. That would be copyright infringement now. And more recently copyright holders are trying to delete any archives that could be used for that purpose like the internet archive or LibGen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you be pleased if that applied to all of your work too? That immediately anyone can start taking your work and making money off of it? Copyright at least makes big players pay the original creators for the rights to the works. Netflix going ahead and making money off of subscribers while paying nothing to creators would be a significantly worse situation.
> Would you be pleased if that applied to all of your work too? That immediately anyone can start taking your work and making money off of it? Sure. From now on I either release my software as AGPLv3 or I don't release it at all. Truth is even if someone violates my license I'm not gonna waste my limited time on this earth litigating against them in court over it. I have better things to do. Stallman would disagree b…
You do realize that barely any of that content they provide would even exist without copyright. There would be two outcomes either movies only get released in cinemas and the original copy is for projection is heavily guarded with not official "home video" releases at all or no movies with a significant budget ever get released.
> Everything humanity ever created would be available at our fingertips.
Yes but "Everything" in that situation would only be a marginal proportion of what is available now. Forget expensive movies/tv shows/etc. how could even any writer make a living on his own without having to rely on some reason patron or a full time job like back in the 16th century?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> From now on I either release my software as AGPLv3 Why not just make it public domain? That's the default in a world without the right of ownership of code. > Oops, looks like it's our code now. How would you make money of it? It's not like you can sell it. > Were it not for copyright, we'd all be using peer to peer technology invented decades ago to consume content much more efficiently What content? How would it…
> Why not just make it public domain? That's the default in a world without the right of ownership of code. Because if I do that I'm just unconditionally transferring wealth to corporations just as you claimed. No point in doing that while they still get to be "all rights reserved". It's only fair if nobody's protected. > How would you make money of it? It's not like you can sell it. By using it to do improve our own…
So basically every creator would have to have a rich patron/be funded by a government/etc. who would obviously generally want to impose their own agendas?
> Crowdfunding
So unless an author already has a widespread reputation and a large group of people willing to support him he has no right to benefit from his works? Somebody who is completely unknown but ends up publishing a book which ends up widely popular gets absolutely nothing?
I find it inconceivable bizarre that anyone would ever want to live in such a dark and intellectually subdued world for some ideological reason. I mean abolishing copyright would throw us back to the 15-16th century just with internet instead of the printing press...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not a reasonable compromise. Your proposal of 0 years in a nonstarter, and walking slightly back from that is still a nonstarter. On the contrary. Copyright itself is a non-starter. Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. They're the ones who need to convince us to respect whatever social contract they seek to impose. They are doing such a horrible job at it that it can be argued that co…
> Copyright itself is a non-starter. Sure...in your fantasy land. In the real world, it's not (because, as a sibling comment noted, it's the status quo and not even a very controversial one at that). > That's why 10 years is an exceptionally generous compromise. Being selfish but calling it "exceptionally generous" doesn't make it so. It just means you're deluded or a liar. >>> Remember, copyright exists at all becau…