I propose the "Alice in Wonderland" metric for copyright discussions. Should we be allowed to freely share and make adaptations of Diney's 1951 Alice in Wonderland?
Alice in Wonderland is:
(1) Based on a book written in 1865 which is in the public domain
(2) Of major cultural importance on its own merits
(3) Four generations old
(4) Copyrighted until (at least) 2036
(5) Trapped in the "Disney Vault" and not available by legal means
@sir I don't even think we need a metric. There's no evidence copyright actually helps creators anymore. It's just parasites living off someone's creations pretending to be indispensable.
@isagalaev I agree with you entirely, but it's good to have arguments to gradually bring someone entirely opposed to this gradually around to our viewpoint
@sir fair point!
Copyright does also help "the little guy" to a certain extent by providing a means of defence against large corps taking their work and using it without recognizing/paying the artist.
However, I completely agree that the way it works right now is totally broken and, unless you have lots of money, it's hard to fight a case.
This video by Tom Scott is great at explaining many of the aspects of copyright, if you're interested: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU
@sir why not "authors lifespan + 20 years"?
It gives creators the rights to their work for their entire lives.
It gives their children access to that in their estate for at least their childhood years.
It ties specific creations to specific people: you cannot have a corporation continuously churn the copyright over and over.
It's sufficiently long and easily explainable that it should be an easy sell to people (though maybe not the industry and its lobby).
Downsides: probably a bit more expensive to track. Who is responsible for informing the copyright office when an author dies?
Someone will probably argue that it's not fair that your work is only yours to benefit from for 20 years if you die the day it's published, compared to about 80 if you write it young.
@kline why should an author have ownership over intellectual works for their entire lives? Why should their children be entitled to it at all? Argue your point from first principles.
@sir I believe that intellectual works are no less valuable than physical works. In the same way that no one should be able to take your rightfully owned, self-crafted chair while you live, no one should take your intellectual work and force it into the public domain while you live. Of course, you always retain the right to do so yourself if you think that is right and just.
Similarly, in the same way that you can hand down property, you should be able to hand down your intellectual output. If your parents were highly reliant on the income that comes from copyright and licensing, you should be able to inherit that such that your parents efforts can support you until you are your own adult.
This, of course, hinges on authors not being coerced into signing away their copyright to abusive corporations. It's more about making "intellectual property" (a poisoned phrase) more like physical property, but also maintaining a mechanism that allows the value from it to fall into the public domain in a fairly reasonable time in the grand scheme of things. It's not about rent-seeking by building IP franchises that can be milked in perpetuity.
>I believe that intellectual works are no less valuable than physical works. In the same way that no one should be able to take your rightfully owned, self-crafted chair while you live, no one should take your intellectual work and force it into the public domain while you live.
This is demonstrably false. The chair required wood and time to produce. Copying the blueprint requires 25c for the copy machine at the gas station down the street.
@sir I'm not arguing that the chair requires more materials.
It's a bit like the whole "why should I pay you for fixing my PC, it only taken you 30 seconds to <install patch/remove broken stuff/etc>".
There's intangible value in knowledge, creativity, and expression. I happily pay for books. If I could pay authors directly for their work (and it really is work to write a book), I'd be happier.
I reject that their lives work should be anything less than their life's work.
@kline @sir Now the title is a clickbait, but the contents are right here. https://torrentfreak.com/when-authors-demand-payment-for-every-copy-theyre-advocating-communism-151220/
1) I do not buy that people have a right to an inheritance, unless it's for nostalgia's sake.
2) I think artists can retain a moral/social claim to their work without legal enforcement, or at least with significantly reduced legal enforcement.
And you didn't go here, but:
3) I really don't like "anti-circumvention laws" for enforcement, they conflict with our ownership over our computers.
1) without inheritance, if at 7 years old my parents die early, how am I to be financially supported throughout my feeding, schooling, etc. vs a much more predatory financial market that wants to sell me a larger student loan to compensate?
2) I disagree, see my post here on why: https://cmpwn.com/@kline/104113978893738016
3) I agree wholeheartedly - anticircumvention laws are wrong and completely out of scope of this discussion. What should be against the law is the violation of an artists right to earn from their work. People should be absolutely free to rip CDs to whatever format, region, make backups as they please. There should be no need for anticircumvention tech as the courts should back artists who have been wronged.
In the same way, you should be backed by the courts against someone who robbed your house even if you don't have locks on your door. DRM and locks are methods to protect you from crime happening, but really they shouldn't be necessary as the legal protections should be robust.
Yes, there's a gap between the realities of locking your door and putting DRM on a CD, but the principle is the same: the victim should not be penalised for not fighting harder to prevent a crime.
1) I'd say something's seriously wrong with your society if you're relying on inheritance to get you out of that situation. Not everyone would be so lucky.
2) A decade after publishing, say, should be plenty of time for you to establish your authorship over a creative work and get a decent income. Though ideally you'd get paid before hand so there's less need for those capitalists to lend you money.
3) O.K., I'll lay off that. Had to get it off my chest again.
1) the state should support you. Ideally, it would need to give you less if you were lucky enough to inherit. Certainly, you waste less by taking it all away, tumbling it inefficiently into cash, and giving it back.
2) in the grand scheme of things, I don't think the difference between 10 years and lifetime+20 is all that much. They're both practically deterministic and instant compared to the current triple digit, ever lengthening rules. I could be talked both up and down from where I stand - but I do think there should be a robustly defined and immutable, equal limit.
3) entirely understandable, the modern state of things is horseshit and I get that it's good to vent about it.
Couldn't disagree more.
Property makes sense for things that are naturally scarce. Information isn't scarce.
If I take away your chair, you can't use it anymore.
If I copy your ideas, blueprints, written text, etc., you still have them and can use them as much as you could before.
Copyright wasn't established out of first principles. It was established pragmatically to reward authors.
@kick from a more general point of view, because the idea of inheritance being abolished is a bit more radical than that I've been exposed to previously, how does this work if I'm 7 years old, have a middle class parent, and they die?
My childhood self has nothing and I'd lose the financial support that my parents would give me to support me through college (vs. increased dependence on a highly predatory student loan system), etc.
@kick I think that the fundamentals in your life: your parents day to day wealth, your home, your basic possessions be they sentimental or practical, should be entirely inheritable. In this way, you keep the roof over your head, you don't go broke, and you can carry on your fathers trade. You lose your parents but not your family situation. You're no worse off than before, other than not having your parents uninheritable guidance and wisdom.
Luxuries? Tax them.
Corporate empires and wealth beyond what can be considered part of someones day to day life? Tax it very, very deeply.
@kick I didn't say it outright, but what this really means is that Bruce and Bernice both keep the essentials that stop them slipping (further) into welfare crisis. Bernice keeps everything she could. Bruce's luxuries and luck are taxed.
@kick (and ideally that tax is used to help pull Bernice up out of poverty and into a place where she can go to whatever college she's suited to)
It should not be a revenue generating govt office, nor should it be a benchmark and decision maker on "what is worthy art", etc, beyond that set out by the rules.
In the past, it was the case that if you wanted to have music, you hired musicians to perform. Their income wasn't based on the sale of reproductions of their creation, it came from their performance - something that lasts as long as you can work. This is reasonable.
These days, almost everything comes from the fact that it's incredibly cheap to mass reproduce creations. It's much less viable to live like this if you don't have protection from being undercut by redistributors who buy one copy of your work and redistribute it with the economies of scale such that you cannot compete, paying nothing back to you.
That said, I'm not calling for the continuance of the status quo. Artists should have a much stronger position to retain control of their work and their copyright and *license* reproduction, compared to now where you essentially work to a contract where they pay you to produce music as an employee, where they take the copyright and you live on meager salaries or commissions per piece.
Also, anyone who has been to a concert, and seen it recorded, can tell you a lot about the reproducability of the concertgoing experience
@lanodan (for real, removing copyright law wouldn't make this go away. The corporations have had their taste and what we need now is to take a stronger bargaining position. Make software that doesn't require you to do this. Make it a competitor. Have ethical software push exploitative software out and make not asking the norm and have users take a stronger stance in managing their own rights.)
@lanodan this kind of goes to what I was saying to someone else in a different branch of this.
We need to stop talking about methods, and talk about outcomes. No one gives a shit about cookies. They're useful tech for a bunch of stuff.
Make it illegal for companies to violate the GDPR in any fashion, be it cookies, for fingerprinting HTML5 Canvas elements, etc.
But most importantly, once you do that, hold them to it. Give blistering fines on the order of all quarterly revenues. Make (non-)compliance an existential threat, as it should be, not simply a cost of doing business.
@lanodan so lets fine more heavily. Fines don't work when they money you make by breaking the law is more than the risk*cost you pay when caught.
If you make $10m a year by ignoring the law, and there's only a 50% chance you get caught for each given year, the fine needs to be $20m before it stops being worthwhile to break it.
@lanodan re. performace: yes and no. Yes, some artists are well paid. No, most aren't, and for each artist who is making a comfortable living performing, there are many more who will never manage to make it work and live in poverty, or never get to selfactualise the full extent of their expression and take joy in that, as they have to do this as a side gig to their day jobs. Most money remains in the reproduction, and increasingly, not even that. Streaming I guess is a little like a bit of a shift back to the performance aspect where they are paid per-rendition, but the deal is the worst it's ever been.
Re. MPAA etc. Absolutely yes. They are lobbies of middlemen who seek to gain via owning the reproduction and distribution. They don't represent artists except as far as that they are the representatives of those who give them the few pennies they do get.
Any artist who sticks up for the MPAA etc sticks up to them because it's better to be abused and make a living than your employer firing you and not having anything at all.
@sir Definitely. Works should be automatically placed in the public domain after a set, consistent amount of time (no "life of the author" shenanigans).
Something like a decade seems like enough time for an artist to create something, make money off of their creation, and then the public can have their go with making adaptations/using it.
Much like the way patents currently work—though there are some serious flaws with that system right now too. Fair use also needs to be way less restrictive.
@sir How about 14 years, renewable by the original author. There is no way to encourage a creator to create more works after they pass on. Wasn't that the original purpose of copyright? "To promote the useful arts and science" Subsequently to get those created works into the public domain, so a short monopoly to get the works created, and then released back to the public? (That's how I understood it anyway)
@sir I also think that works should be protected by copyright OR drm. If you want the protection of law, you can't lock the works up so that they cannot be liberated after copyright term, or used for fair use. One or the other. If you use DRM, and it gets copied, tough. DRM works may go out of copyright eventually, but then they are protected by locks that cannot be opened. (equipment no longer available, activation servers long since shut down)
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!