151–160 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it shouldn't be legal to write your Congressional rep and tell them you want them to do X?
It shouldn't be legal to hire groups of professionals to do that, it also shouldn't be legal to send your representatives gifts, take them on vacations, or out to dinner Writing them a letter is fine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This already happens today. Copyright does not protect authors, it protects publishers. This is justified as protecting authors in the very narrow sense that authors did get to negotiate with publishers first, but at the most disadvantaged position they will ever be at in their career. They have to pay, but they can pay a pittance and authors will take it because they have no better options. The low- or zero-copyrigh…
No copyright means publisher can just take that draft, edit it and publish giving 0 to the author.
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? 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…
> 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…
Not all of them.
Thos who do want to make money will need to adapt to other business models - probably something closer to crowdfunding or patronage. How exactly is irrelevant for copyright reform as the law should not concern itself with protecting specific jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember my friend basically paid for all his PC upgrades by investing in CD writer and just ripping stuff for people for equivalent of $5 a pop. If we didn't pirate we wouldn't "buy more games", maybe once a year, coz we were poor. Once steam become a thing and once I started earning wages and just bought stuff, it was easier and it come with updates. Piracy is mostly a service problem. And it also enables gamepas…
Yeah, I think piracy harms the guys who rely on tons of DLC on a good base product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was basically impossible to survive solely as a writer until copyright. Imagine publishing a book in the 16th century. At best you'd get some royalties from the initial publisher. After that if you work becomes popular every printer across the continent can start printing copies without paying you anything. That's obviously a huge impediment to innovation and progress.
So? There are plenty of written works from before copyright. There would be more if we had been better about preservation. People will still write without copyright. Maybe the quality will even go up as there are fewer incentives for quantity over quality. If your argument for copyright relies on protecting speicific jobs then you have no argument. Jobs become obsolete all the time. If you want welfare then argue for…
Yes. Way less of them do cause very few people could afford to write.
> Maybe the quality will even go up as there are fewer incentives for quantity over quality
Maybe people who write/etc. time on average produce better quality than those who can only dedicate a few hours per day for it. Also you want to eradicate entire creative industries like cinema and television for no apparent reason.
> If your argument for copyright relies on protecting speicific jobs then you have no argument
No my argument is that copyright protection (including patents) was one of the main driving forces behind the progress of human progress over the last 300-500 years. Obviously the current system is not perfect, I'm not saying it is... Overall it still made the world a much better place than it would have been without it.
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. 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 th…
You’re clearly someone who just wants to consume content without rewarding the authors for it. There’s no point arguing against a position that’s fundamentally flawed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Crowdfunding, patronage. I'm sure they'll figure it out if they have to 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…
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-legal-war-over-disco-elysium-rea...
https://kotaku.com/witcher-author-threatens-cd-projekt-red-w...
https://www.dualshockers.com/nintendo-copyright-strikes-laws...
Copyright is not in place to protect the authors, but to protect the corporations that own the rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This already happens today. Copyright does not protect authors, it protects publishers. This is justified as protecting authors in the very narrow sense that authors did get to negotiate with publishers first, but at the most disadvantaged position they will ever be at in their career. They have to pay, but they can pay a pittance and authors will take it because they have no better options. The low- or zero-copyrigh…
No copyright means publisher can just take that draft, edit it and publish giving 0 to the author.
The thing about publishers is that none of them are interested in publishing without copyright. Authors have inherent advantages in their craft that would at least leave them with something in a zero-copyright world - you can still crowdfund literature, and that's why you see plenty of self-published authors but not that many self-published filmmakers[0]. But publishers can't - all the things that make them money require not just copyright, but also sublicensing rights on derivative works. In the zero-copyright world they're all fighting to republish things that people already have. So they need copyright ownership with licensing terms that subtly disfavor authors instead.
That being said, I'm not an advocate for zero-copyright. That's the nuclear option. But it does need to be pared back to protecting artists from publishers[1], rather than protecting publishers from readers.
[0] YouTubers and TikTokers don't count, that's a different medium.
[1] And, also, Amazon and friends
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix streams in 4k but you have to pay $4 extra for premium or whatever.
Even then, I don't believe they stream 4k to browsers. They only stream to devices like smart tvs or official Netflix apps with high quality. Your average browser is limited to 720p. This is the quintessential "pirating is better" example.
I also just prefer the video player of my choice.
Paying customers should never have a worse experience than pirating customers. I think this is a huge reason for the success of music streaming. Less so for video streaming now with the huge fragmentation.