301

Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it (walledculture.org)

submitted 7 months ago by Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 104 points 7 months ago

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.

[+] moody@lemmings.world -6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] eatham@aussie.zone 13 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] moody@lemmings.world 1 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

If its personal or internal only copyright wont't matter since no one will have it to release it.

Just don't give it out.

[-] Jolteon@lemmy.zip 7 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.