Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it
Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it
<p>One of the supposed justifications for the intellectual monopoly called copyright is that it drives creativity and culture. In the last few weeks alone we have had multiple demonstrations of why the opposite is true: copyright destroys culture, and not by accident, but wilfully. For example, the ...
![Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it [Updated]](https://lemdro.id/pictrs/image/4374a54f-c989-4665-aa42-6832d0f52304.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=256)
One of the clearest demonstrations of how copyright is actively harmful is the lawsuit that four of the biggest publishers brought against the Internet Archive. As a result of the judge’s decision in favour of the publishers – currently being appealed – more than 500,000 books have been taken out of lending by the Internet Archive, including more than 1,300 banned and “challenged” books. In an open letter to the publishers in the lawsuit, the Internet Archive lists three core reasons why removing half a million ebooks is “having a devastating impact in the US and around the world, with far-reaching implications”.
Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17259314
You're viewing a single thread.
You should be legally required to offer content you have on a copyright or else allow people to "pirate" it. The same way you must defend trademarks. If you don't actually offer content you have the copyright for them you shouldn't be allowed to prevent people from distributing it as abandonware.
I would add creation within an IP to this as well. There are so many good IP out there that some large company has devoured and actively chooses to just sit on when we could be getting good fan-made content. One example that comes to mind since it was brought up is EA sitting on American McGee's Alice. So many fans are desperate for good content from their favourite IPs and are getting corporate by-the-numbers drivel at best or simply nothing.
I think a good trade off here is fans can make what they want then the owners are allowed to incorporate fan stories at their choosing so X fan game would be the official third game in a franchise then the IP owner could run with those ideas to make the fourth entry, for example. It'll never happen but one can dream.
Canada either did, or still does, have a law like this. Years ago back when getting chipped cards for satellites was a pretty big thing, a lot of people near the US border could get ones from the US that weren't available in Canada and get the chipped card or whatever it was. At one point the company made a request to the Canadian authorities to crack down on it, and the response was something to the effect of 'your product isn't available here, you don't have standing to ask us to do that'.
It's easier to define it as this:
If you commercially release something and region restrict it, people in any region where you don't also provide a legal way to purchase/use it should be free to get it however they want.
I likebthat, but I think this misses the part where a company pulls it from all markets, which should be states specificly.
If you don't offer it anymore, you are not allowed to keep the copyright or patent.
What if you create something that you later really hate and don't want it to exist anymore?
We can think of weird edge cases all day, the fact is companies shouldn't be able to hoard IP.
What if Tommy Wiseau became self-aware before the premiere of The Room? The world would be deprived of his glorious travesty of cinema forever.
Too fucking bad? The purpose of IP was to give the public access to novel ideas and art, not to increase the control creators had over it.
Seems weird for it to be called "intellectual property" if its purpose is not to be owned
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Not 'to grant them greater control' or even ownership. To secure exclusive right for a limited time. And this only because it was meant to promote science and art.
Using copyright to prevent a work from spreading is a direct perversion of the intent, it is using it in a manner diametrically opposed to what it is supposed to do.
By having a Right to do something, a person also has the implicit Right to abstain from doing something.
Having the Right to Free Speech doesn't mean that a person is obligated to make publicly available every thought and opinion that they have.
Then they have the right to not continue publishing their stuff. That doesn't affect the rights of the persons who already got their copy alongside the associated rights to consume it. Depending on the licensing terms, it might not even affect their granted right to redistribute, if any.
Then they have the right to not continue publishing their stuff.
I was arguing against the comment that said:
You should be legally required to offer content you have on a copyright or else allow people to "pirate" it.
This would just incentivize malicious compliance. "here's a list of books we own. To purchase, send a letter to this address with a cheque and wait 30 to 60 days".
Or just have that book available in libraries.
So literally every doodle you make and anything you write must be available for purchase? Because you have a copyright on ALL that stuff. Copyrights are automatic.
Your diary? Copyrighted.
Your margin scribbles while you're on the phone? Copyrighted.
That furry midget hentai that you draw for your own "entertainment"? Well, you get the point.Granted, the copyright system is fucked, but some of the rules exist for good reason, and forcing everyone to release their copyrights if they won't sell their art is ridiculous. I will certainly agree that the copyright/trademark systems badly need an overhaul.
You completly misunderstood what you are replying to. They are not saying you have to release anything, just that if you don't, others should be able to.
If you don’t actually offer content you have the copyright for them you shouldn’t be allowed to prevent people from distributing it as abandonware.
That's what I'm replying to. You have the copyright for everything you create. If you don't put it up for sale, they're saying everyone should be allowed to distribute it. That's kind of fucked.
If it was never released to the public copyright (like a personal journal or diary), so it won't matter since no one will have it to release it.
I fail to see what's wrong with that. If you aren't intending to sell it, then it's just hoarding. The only exception I can think of is something you've made but haven't put on the market yet, and an "incomplete and under active development" clause could easily take care of that.
So you spent 10 years on a personal song about your family dying around you, it's very personal, heartfelt and could be extremely successful because it's said in a way that people won't at first understand. You play it for your friends and they absolutely love it and encourage you to put it out. You don't want to because it hurts too much. So you think everyone else has the "right"s to that song because it's hoarding if you don't release it? Come on, you don't own my thoughts and creations, it's selfish, greedy and a little narcissistic.
The comment I made on reply to another comment hits here as well
We can think of weird edge cases all day, the fact is companies shouldn't be able to hoard IP.
For fuck's sake though, talk about strawman arguments. "Literally every doodle you make" when we're talking about abandonware. My eyes nearly rolled out of my fucking head reading that. Do I need to start putting disclaimers on every post I make? "I am aware there is more nuance required before a law gets suggested but I sure wish companies couldn't hoard old media without making it available, please don't 'um, actually' me by suggesting I'm implying everyone must give me copies of their personal shopping lists."
How about reword it slightly: it must be available for purchase if you want to use IP law to prevent others from distributing it.
All the examples you have brought forward apply to private individuals. This is about cooperations and companies. Those very different legal entities.
All the examples you have brought forward apply to private individuals. This is about cooperations and companies. Those very different legal entities.
That is not what some people here are saying, they want everything put out for copyright to be public domain. What's hilarious is, that's exactly what the AI hoovers want, they want everything anyone else makes. Especially the unique and creative artists. So these people in this thread want the same thing as these huge corporations everyone here hates.