824
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
824 points (95.1% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
3040 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That would make it harder for creative people to produce things and make money from it. Abolishing copyright isn't the answer. We still need a system like that.
A shorter period of copyright, would encourage more new content. As creative industries could no longer rely on old outdated work.
no, it would make it easier.
it would be harder to stop people from making money on creative works.
You write a book, people start buying that book. Someone copies that book and sells it for 10 pence on Amazon. You get nothing from each sale.
You write a song and people want to listen to it. Spotify serves them that song, you get nothing because you have no right to own your copy.
That's how free/libre and open-source software has worked since forever. And it works just fine. There is no need for an exclusive right to commercialise a product in order for it to be produced. You are basically parroting a decades old lie from Hollywood.
Yeah, you don't need exclusive rights for it to be produced. But artists, especially smaller artists, need that right to do silly things like paying for food and rent.
no, they don't
you can still sell your book
you can still sell your song.
but your song can be a remix. your book can be a retelling of a popular story.
you can still make money. you just can't stop other people from making money. that is all copyright does, and it is wrong. it destroys culture.
I don't think you understand how copyrights work. If they are abolished, everybody is free to redistribute your creation without compensation or even acknowledgement. The moment you put it out there, it's instantly public domain.
That means we'd have no more professionally produced movies, series, books, songs, games, etc., but would be stuck with what's essentially fan art.
Sure, there are talented artists out there who produce music as a hobby, youtubers who make great videos and such, but it would be the end of commercial productions.
we had professionally produced songs and books and games and plays before copyright. you are making that up.
I don't think you understand how copyrights work
They are idealizing a pay-the-creator system. They are arguing for a system that is kinda coming together with patreon-like stuff.
You seem to be arguing that people will just buy the cheapest identical copy. Which is hard to argue against, but there are people out there that pay creators that give their work for free. Copyright law certainly protects creators. But it's cool to see some creators monetizing on open-licensed work.
I think you replied to the wrong comment
Yeah, kinda. I forgot which side of the argument the reply I replied to was on. I guess you can just flip the "you"s and "they"s. Or am I still off-base?
Yeah, just make your own Spotify, how difficult is that?
Relatively simple actually, without copyright. Download Spotify, rename app to Spudify, re-upload to app store. Done, easy peasy. Hardest part about it would be decompiling the existing app, which is definitely possible and may not even be necessary.
The real truth is, however, that in this hypothetical world there would be no Spotify to copy and there would be much, much less music available to stream on Spudify.
Yeah cuz musicians and artists only ever do it for the money...no other reason ever, nope.
If they can't afford to do it, then you're relegating creativity to only those wealthy enough to be able to afford to do it.
The vast majority of art throughout human history was paid for by somebody, or sold by the artist. Van Gogh dies a poor man because people didn't want to buy his paintings when he was alive. The Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a Pope. Just because you think your have an intrinsic right to the work of somebody else doesn't mean you do.
Your first sentence is simply not true.
It absolutely is true. If people can't afford the time to create, what you'll see is a hyper-accelerated version of the fine art world, with AI art for the masses, and human-made art for the wealthy either by commission or by those wealthy enough to spend the time learning to create their own, never to be seen by anyone else. And since AI work is a derivative of the work in its data set, it will degrade in quality over time as those data sets become filled with AI generated work. We're already seeing this with stuff like ChatGPT.
It's only been in the past 50-100 years that your average person has been able to buy art. Before then, art was relegated to the wealthy. Artists had patrons, people with more money than sense who were willing to pay the artist enough that they could spend their time making art instead of working, or they made commissioned pieces for the wealthy: private art for their homes, public statues and pieces for temples venerating the person who had it commissioned, stuff like that.
without copyright standing in your way, it is a cinch.