Imagine being so brainwashed you actually believe modern copyright laws allows for free speech. Does this person constantly live with their heads in the clouds or are they just naturally braindead?
Copyright fuels a weird form of creativity, the “Original Character do not steal” that is a blatant copy of another character. It also happens in music all the time, “Original lyrics, sound and composition, do not copy”
As for promoting free speech, yeah, no, it doesn’t. Everyone can point to a dozen videos being taken down by bogus copyright reasons, whether because it played 10 seconds of a specific music, or because the author of a piece of art disliked the video. That’s not even mentioning how you can’t (couldn’t?) use the “happy birthday” song in USA without being copyright struck.
In germany it explicitly includes that you can use as much stuff of some else if you add something or make a parody, just copying is obviously forbidden
In the US the law does that. Even reaction videos that basically show the original are generally OK. The problem is that generally places for the general public to post things, don’t want to spend the legal costs of checking every claim. So they do a guilty until proven innocent approach where if someone has a registered business if they accuse someone it gets yanked immidiately, and then it’s up to the users to prove it’s not infringement.
Well, it’s not wrong to say that about the basic concept of copyright. The original purpose of copyright was to allow authors to feel free to publish stuff more widely without fear of it being “stolen.” Without copyright there’d be a lot more proprietary information being squirrelled away in private archives.
But of course, that concept has been completely hijacked over the years. The duration no longer makes sense for that original purpose.
Yeah. Copyright should exist for like, 20 years or so? Or no more than 10 years after the holder’s death so dependent family can adapt. This 90-100 years is bullshit. It doesn’t benefit the creators, it benefits the rights holders. Almost always a corporation profiting off the back of their workers.
Agreed. The fundamental concept doesn’t seem bad. Usually it is harder to create than copy. So for someone to invest resources into creating something, we might want a system that allows him to recoup those costs before someone else who didn’t need to front load those costs undercuts him.
believe it or not, that wasn’t the original purpose of copyright. copyright was invented as a form of censorship. in 1556, the Charter of the Stationers’ Company was given the exclusive right to control the operation of printing presses in England, up to and including the ability to seize offending books and burn the printing presses that made them (L. Ray Patterson, Copyright and “the Exclusive Right” of Authors, p. 9)
I agree with this, but lets make it more explicit.
Supporting creative arts and works encourages more to be made. Copyright is one method we have tried to help creatives self-support from their work.
The corporatization of copyright, making it transferable, and forever… doesn’t seem to be as helpful as the original version. The public domain needs regular feeding as well.
Ah yes, a statement on copyright thanking someone for buying an authorised edition of Great Expectations, a book whose copyright expired in 1940 at the latest…
Right, the copyright is specifically for random essays added to the book, so that they could release it and say it wasn’t entirely public domain, so you shouldn’t copy it. A weird place to say “copyright fuels creativity” when it’s clearly not the reason for the copyright here.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Imagine being so brainwashed you actually believe modern copyright laws allows for free speech. Does this person constantly live with their heads in the clouds or are they just naturally braindead?
They’re one of the ones wanting to do the brainwashing.
Btw I have taken this picture straight from a bookstore
Madlad
You can read this book online, by the way.
Copyright fuels a weird form of creativity, the “Original Character do not steal” that is a blatant copy of another character. It also happens in music all the time, “Original lyrics, sound and composition, do not copy”
As for promoting free speech, yeah, no, it doesn’t. Everyone can point to a dozen videos being taken down by bogus copyright reasons, whether because it played 10 seconds of a specific music, or because the author of a piece of art disliked the video. That’s not even mentioning how you can’t (couldn’t?) use the “happy birthday” song in USA without being copyright struck.
In germany it explicitly includes that you can use as much stuff of some else if you add something or make a parody, just copying is obviously forbidden
In the US the law does that. Even reaction videos that basically show the original are generally OK. The problem is that generally places for the general public to post things, don’t want to spend the legal costs of checking every claim. So they do a guilty until proven innocent approach where if someone has a registered business if they accuse someone it gets yanked immidiately, and then it’s up to the users to prove it’s not infringement.
Well, it’s not wrong to say that about the basic concept of copyright. The original purpose of copyright was to allow authors to feel free to publish stuff more widely without fear of it being “stolen.” Without copyright there’d be a lot more proprietary information being squirrelled away in private archives.
But of course, that concept has been completely hijacked over the years. The duration no longer makes sense for that original purpose.
Yeah. Copyright should exist for like, 20 years or so? Or no more than 10 years after the holder’s death so dependent family can adapt. This 90-100 years is bullshit. It doesn’t benefit the creators, it benefits the rights holders. Almost always a corporation profiting off the back of their workers.
Agreed. The fundamental concept doesn’t seem bad. Usually it is harder to create than copy. So for someone to invest resources into creating something, we might want a system that allows him to recoup those costs before someone else who didn’t need to front load those costs undercuts him.
But as you said the current system is broken.
believe it or not, that wasn’t the original purpose of copyright. copyright was invented as a form of censorship. in 1556, the Charter of the Stationers’ Company was given the exclusive right to control the operation of printing presses in England, up to and including the ability to seize offending books and burn the printing presses that made them (L. Ray Patterson, Copyright and “the Exclusive Right” of Authors, p. 9)
I agree with this, but lets make it more explicit.
Supporting creative arts and works encourages more to be made. Copyright is one method we have tried to help creatives self-support from their work.
The corporatization of copyright, making it transferable, and forever… doesn’t seem to be as helpful as the original version. The public domain needs regular feeding as well.
I expected more from a company like Penguin Books.
Ah yes, a statement on copyright thanking someone for buying an authorised edition of Great Expectations, a book whose copyright expired in 1940 at the latest…
Right, the copyright is specifically for random essays added to the book, so that they could release it and say it wasn’t entirely public domain, so you shouldn’t copy it. A weird place to say “copyright fuels creativity” when it’s clearly not the reason for the copyright here.
I don’t believe in physical property and i don’t believe in intellectual property. Fucking propertarians…🏴🏴🏴
Alright, time to scan every page and upload it