Apparently some silly USians want to extend copyright again: https://boingboing.net/2018/05/18/orrin-fucking-hatch.html
Repeating my Twitter reaction:
When will musicians realize that their biggest competitor is ALL THE PAST RECORDINGS EVER and revolt against this madness?
The Internet is not what makes music hard work. Never was! It's competing with Elvis & Mozart.
Demand the right to build on the past, not compete with it.
@HerraBRE And when will people start listening to other artists than musicians and painters? Copyright is a severe obstacle for my dramatical activities and in effect leads to plays not being made.
@lilletale @Wolf480pl Also, have you tried arguing copyright with musicians or film makers or painters? Many of them totally believe in the current system really hate the idea of "infringing" upon their rights.
It's their pension! It's their legacy! For their kids!
The big corps may be the ones with the lobbying $$$, but it's the creative people that influence culture and values.
If they stopped believing the hype and spoke up, the lobbies would be exposed for the corporate shills they are.
You know, not all musicians are completely ignorant of that.
Some of us even studied economics.
Some of us even think the current so-called Intellectual Property (which is neither intellectual, nor property) regime is stupid.
This has more to do with politicians and rent-seeking behaviour.
Now, rise up and revolt please. 😛
I am, in my way. Not violent revolution; I've seen enough of that for one lifetime. But I apply what pressure I can, and speak out where I can.
Everyone needs a hobby.
Here's a few old texts of mine on the subject, too. Not even close to being in the same league as Cory's writing, obviously, but contain a lot of sources:
There are many problems in the arts world that make it hard for people to demand a decent wage. I am aware of this, which is why I concede that some form of limited copyright is even worth considering.
But once that wage has been earned, I don't see any ethical argument for continued payments, let alone restrictions on the thoughts and creativity of others.
Acting as if society will suddenly become devoid of creative works if we abolish copyright flies in the face of reality. It's just not true, never has been and never will be.
The problem that needs solving, is to fairly compensate people for their work - and maximize the benefit to society.
Copyright does a crap job of both. Reform it! 😁
@techbolt @jankoekepan @rysiek If I were Emperor Of The Planet, there'd be Universal Basic Income, no copyright at all, but correct attribution would be required and creatives would be granted a limited (maybe 10 year or so) right-to-veto derivative works out of respect to their artistic vision.
Something like that.
I'm not Emperor. 👑
I also want to say, that even though I have a vision for how I feel things should be, I don't expect we can get there in one step. That would be unfair to people who have built their lives around the current system.
But we can't even make minor improvements if people are unwilling to at least think about alternatives.
There are other positions to consider. The way that copyrights are written right now, they constitute a limitation on your own brain, to the point that they constrain artists, rather than liberate them (check out the lawsuits like the Marvin Gaye estate/family's case).
Once enough of the culture is locked down, every artist (and engineer, and designer) is straitjacketed forever.
If I were not motivated by money, why would "perpetual monetary returns" be a good idea?
However you cut it "perpetual monetary returns" do not make sense.
We're talking still receiving payments on something you did 20, 30, 50 years ago. I do not see how this makes sense. Especially that for the most popular works it's not the authors who are receiving the payments! It's corporate owners.
@HerraBRE I don't think any actual musicians support this, unless they're major artists hopelessly in the thrall of music industry propaganda.
@woozle I wish I could believe that. My conversations, even with enlightened geeky artists, suggest it's a very mixed bag.
My sentiment isn't about just opposing this particular overreach, it's about whether the creative types support copyright reform in general.
Many, possibly even most, do not.
@HerraBRE Well, I'll just say that *I* don't know any artists who support copyright extension.
@woozle And how many do you know who would go for your throat if you suggested the opposite - aggressive copyright reduction?
I'll have to ask -- but I'd certainly be for it (speaking as a songwriter).
@HerraBRE At some point we need to point out that if the law keeps getting extended and Mickey Mouse never falls into the public domain, copyright as Congress defines it is no longer limited in extend and therefore falls outside the authority the Constitution gives it to grant copyright for a LIMITED period.
@seanl Probably true.
But that's a largely U.S. specific argument which is only a weak defense anyway.
I can't bring myself to get excited about fighting over crumbs.
@HerraBRE @clacke @seanl actually we should abolish private property entirely, in all its forms, but especially "intellectual" -- the particulars of which depend on the *discovery* of information and not the *creation* of it (as no information can be created or destroyed, it is infinitely transmissible and therefore not subject to any natural law of scarcity)
insofar as (c) continues to exist, anything more than 10 years is altogether too obscene.
I think there probably needs to be some kind of private property though we might be able to agree on something you might not consider to be private property. The only form of IP I think had any business existing is trademarks, but those are covered by prohibitions against fraud.
@trwnh @HerraBRE @clacke
I think the main reason to have some kind of private property is that there is always a trivial way to privatize any shared resource, and that's to kill everyone who contests your claim. Since we don't want that to happen, we provide a way to do it that doesn't involve killing.
@trwnh @HerraBRE @clacke I'm not opposed to this idea in the abstract, but I don't understand how to concretely apply it. Say, for example, I leave for work in the morning, then come home to find someone else has moved into my house. Since they are now using it, does that make it their house? If they do damage to it, who's responsible for fixing it? What constitutes damage versus normal wear and tear in that case?
@seanl occupying a house for less than 8 hours doesn't really qualify as usage, though
So how many hours are required?
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!