Apparently some silly USians want to extend copyright again: boingboing.net/2018/05/18/orri

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

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.

@jankoekepan @HerraBRE great!

Then speak up! Let politicians and the public know about your view. It would make #copyreform activists jobs so much easier.

@rysiek @HerraBRE

I do. I don't have a big voice, but I do.

Here, for one example (not the only one).

@rysiek

All this is new to me... I thought copyright of creative work to safeguard something an artist created was a good thing... It stops plagiarism ...is that not the case...

Please can you point me to some links where I can read more on this topic and be better informed while making up my own mind.

@HerraBRE @jankoekepan

@techbolt @HerraBRE @jankoekepan so... I would say read Cory Doctorow's stuff on BoingBoing and elsewhere. That's a good place to start.

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:
rys.io/en/108
rys.io/en/48
rys.io/en/41

@rysiek

I just read the three blog entries. Thanks for that and as usual wonderfully written indeed.

I think I understand most of the concerns from what you have on the blog. However, I am struggling to get my head around one thing - What as per this school of thought is position on copyright with a limited term - Is it a complete no no or is it just that corporations are making it impossible for a work of art to come into public domain even long after the original creator has passed away and that must be tackled?

If latter, is it not common practice that copyrights are sold and ownerships transferred so as to ensure creator gets to keep the royalty which he/she rightfully deserved and is fully entitled to pass on to his coming generation or for the cause he/she truly believed in?

As a creator (and I am not one by a long long shot) what would be my motivation to continue giving entertainment to the society if anyone can steal my work and claim the fame and money that follows that fame?

@jankoekepan @HerraBRE

@techbolt @rysiek @jankoekepan I'll just turn that around. Why in the world should anyone get paid forever, for work they did once?

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.

@HerraBRE
I agree that getting work in public domain is good but for someone to create they need to be motivated and I can imagine perpetual monetary returns are as good as they get... I would be motivated by something like that -right or wrong comes later - motivation to create comes first and that to my simplistic mind appears to be prompted by this high return more often than not....am I on wrong end of the stick here?

If I am not, then the right answer would be to keep up the motivation to create and keep the greed in check - somewhat like tax process. I have to give tax on what I earn so perhaps the time limit to copyright must have the hard stop as a way of community imposed rule rather than an expectation that a creator will willingly part from a benefit...

I mean tax is imposed because rarely anyone will be willingly paying tax unless it is imposed by the law so I can see a good reason to support a time limiting law but to expect creators or artists to support that law might be expecting too much from mere mortals.

@jankoekepan @rysiek

@techbolt @jankoekepan @rysiek Most of the artists I know are relatively poor, even broke. Money is definitely not what motivates them to create.

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! ๐Ÿ˜

Follow

@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. ๐Ÿ‘‘

ยท Web ยท 0 ยท 1 ยท 4
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Generalistic and moderated instance. All opinions are welcome, but hate speeches are prohibited. Users who don't respect rules will be silenced or suspended, depending on the violation severity.