Not the OP, but I believe very strongly that once an idea has been expressed it should be free for others to build upon and share. That's how ideas work, naturally.

All of human culture is derivative. The current legal regime stifles human expression and makes it impossible for creations to ever be shared in a reasonable human timescale.

To state it in an arguably hyperbolic manner: The "moneyed interests" you're railing against exist because of the current scheme of "intellectual property". They reap virtually all the benefits of human intellectual toil in the system already. Wiping away their stranglehold on the market would be a good thing for creators. Taking away the legal framework their existence is predicated upon would do that.

The copyright industry's influence on social norms, including the massive shift of the social contract in favor of their interests ( functionally infinite copyright terms, attacks of fair use, plundering the public domain to sell it back, works being lost forever because they are "orphaned", etc), all seems natural to you because they want it to be that way. The concept of someone "owning" an idea, which seems perfectly normal to you, was taught to you by people who want the world to be that way, not because it's some natural law. You've been conditioned to believe it your entire life.

I would prefer a fairer system to burning it all down, but the needle has moved so far away from fair that burning it all down seems pretty satisfying.

▲

caconym_ 8 months ago | parent [-]

> Not the OP, but I believe very strongly that once an idea has been expressed it should be free for others to build upon and share. That's how ideas work, naturally.

> All of human culture is derivative. The current legal regime stifles human expression and makes it impossible for creations to ever be shared in a reasonable human timescale.

In the context of copyright law, this is absurd. Fair use exists and it generally isn't even required to "allow" artistic and cultural influence to propagate. If I want to write a sci-fi novel that is heavily influenced and arguably even derivative of my favorite work of some other author, I am completely free to do so---i just can't copy it wholesale. Established fair use doctrine is certainly subject to criticism and future reform, but in a much more nuanced scope than you are applying here.

If you're talking about patents, that's a different conversation. But based on context, that isn't the conversation we're having here.

> burning it all down

Generically, this is another common suggestion from people with naive viewpoints and little or no relevant experience and/or exposure. Notably, people said that about both of Trump's presidential terms to date. I will let you make up your own mind on how that is going for us.

edit: I should also mention that literally every working artist I've talked to about the prospect of abolishing IP law is vehemently opposed to it.

▲

EvanAnderson 8 months ago | parent [-]

I wish I'd written "...derivative creations..." in that sentence, but heat-of-the-moment being what it was I did not. Having said that, I believe the scope of an infringing derivative work is a lot broader than you are suggesting.

Finding success defending a derivative work on the basis of fair use, particularly if the derivative work is itself financially successful and derivative of a work "owned" by a rights holder with deep pockets, doesn't seem to be very easy in today's legal climate. It certainly doesn't take "wholesale" copying to attract the attention of a rights holder, either. Heck, with the music industry it doesn't take any copying at all to end up losing a lawsuit.

I'll cite the Tolkien or Marvin Gaye estates as good examples among many. I, too, believe it's a ton more nuanced than how you're characterizing it.

> Generically, this is another common suggestion from people with naive viewpoints and little or no relevant experience and/or exposure.

I said "I would prefer a fairer system to burning it all down...". I even qualified my writing as hyperbolic. It seems disingenuous that you'd choose to belittle and make unfavorable comparisons, given both of those statements.

Characterize my viewpoint how you will, but my viewpoint isn't "burning it all down". I will admit that indulging in a little daydreaming about morally repugnant rights hoarders getting what they deserve is fun, but it isn't realistic or productive for society. A fairer system, enabled by shorter copyright terms and better handling of "orphan" works, would be the right thing and what I wish for. Just like I said.

> I should also mention that literally every working artist I've talked to about the prospect of abolishing IP law is vehemently opposed to it.

Well, yeah-- of course they would be opposed to such a vast, sweeping change. It would be madness if they weren't.

The interesting conversation to have with working artists would be about reducing copyright terms, and how that would both "cost" them in potential lost revenue but at the same time free them from the specter of potential litigation and, at the same time, open up vast tracts of public domain work they could build upon.

	▲	caconym_ 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		If you don't actually think IP law should be outright abolished, your viewpoint is of a totally different species than that of the person I originally replied to, and we probably agree on more than we disagree on---in particular that the system is arguably biased toward, and certainly heavily abused by, moneyed actors. Believe it or not, there really are people who think literally deleting all of IP law is the right thing to do, and it is my honest belief that my first comment in this topic is in reply to one of those people. I appreciate your clarification of your viewpoint (and the appeal of a fantasy in which we Stick It To The Man by cutting off the hand that grips Mickey Mouse and other beloved IPs by the throat), but I hope you can see why I read your comment as I did, especially in the context of what I was replying to. > The interesting conversation to have with working artists would be about reducing copyright terms, and how that would both "cost" them in potential lost revenue but at the same time free them from the specter of potential litigation and, at the same time, open up vast tracts of public domain work they could build upon. I am 100% in favor of reducing copyright terms. I'm not sure I've ever talked to somebody who isn't—I suspect I'd have to talk to a corporation-as-person to find that viewpoint in the wild.