301
Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it
(walledculture.org)
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 05 Jul 2024
301 points (97.8% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54746 readers
802 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The purpose of copyright is to promote science and the useful arts. The purpose is to get art and inventions into the public domain. The purpose is not "to get artists paid". Getting them paid for their works and discoveries is the method by which copyright achieves its purpose. It is not the purpose itself.
If they are only interested in keeping their works proprietary; if they are uninterested in pushing them into the public domain, they are not achieving the purpose for which copyright exists. They do not qualify for copyright protection. They can get bent.
Says someone that has never made anything. Do you think art, music, etc. comes magically out of nowhere? I don't really care to fight about what the original intent of copyright is, artists and every person should own their own bodies, likeness, voices and creative outputs.
Then you can get bent.
Art and invention benefit the whole of humanity. A work whose sole beneficiary is its creator does not qualify as art or invention, and deserves no protection.
The current copyright system is absurd, but protecting an artist's work in the short term is what copyright was meant for originally. 70 years post death is way beyond ridiculous, but something like 5 years from conception makes sense. That way a creator gets a short period to profit off their work while it's protected, and then it would enter public domain and anyone could do as they wish with it.
Unfortunately it would still allow a situation where someone presents a screenplay to a studio, and gets turned down, and then 5 years later the studio makes a movie from that screenplay and makes a billion dollars without the creator getting anything from it. That's what copyright is meant to prevent, but it has definitely gotten twisted and corrupted over the years, mostly thanks to Disney.
Exactly. I don't have a problem with artists profiting from their work. I don't have a problem with their temporary exclusivity. The problem I have is when they never intend for that work to belong to the people; when they think they can maintain control over an idea long after it has become "culture".
For the problem you mention, I would suggest that any studio who has been offered the work during the five year period owes royalties for a 5-year period after the studio publishes the work, even if it has since entered the public domain. Something along those lines would likely become a standard clause between the screenwriter's guild and the studios, and doesn't necessarily need to be enacted in law.
I wouldn't be opposed to a longer period for some major works. Start with a standard, 5-year period from the time of original publication, then allow an extended copyright registration with an exponentially increasing annual fee. A few additional years would likely be affordable. The fifth, possibly. The sixth, only for the most profitable franchises, and the seventh being a large fraction of the national GDP. If James Cameron wants to pay for the entire military establishment through the proceeds of Avatar III, he can get one more year of protection.