| ▲ | deaton 2 hours ago |
| This is an incredibly naive view of intellectual property. If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. Do you think any of your favorite movies and TV shows ever get made without copyright protections? Of course not, because money needs to change hands for those things to be funded. |
|
| ▲ | ux266478 a minute ago | parent | next [-] |
| Is it the pursuit accumulating capital (incentive to profit) or merely to fund something? You switch from the former to the latter. Why do you believe that profit is reliant on copyright? Piracy is so widespread that copyright may as well not exist (in the context of the consumption of media) outside of moralizing rhetoric, and yet insane profits are made all the same. I cannot at all relate to being so devoid of passions in all categories but the accumulation of capital. If we are to justify copyright and the concept of intellectual property writ large, then as far as I can see its only real usecase is in defending against precisely the people who are possessed by an obsession with capital, those dragons who merely care to see their hoard grow larger. Unfortunately, that's not how these systems are structured in our society. The transferability of intellectual property all but warps the idea into something that instead empowers those it should disarm. |
|
| ▲ | StableAlkyne an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things How do you explain the creative works of writing, music, and art that existed in the millennia of human history between the Mesopotamians and the Enlightenment era? |
| |
| ▲ | bjt 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | They tended to be solo productions, or sponsored by aristocratic patrons. Anyone suggesting that we could create movies, TV, music, or games on the scale we do today, without copyright, does not seem worth taking seriously. | |
| ▲ | jaccola an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Copying was prohibitively expensive. | | |
| ▲ | StableAlkyne 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The original statement was about there being little incentive to create a work you don't "own" Difficulty in copying is irrelevant to owning it. Moreover, this does not address music or spoken word. A pre-copyright musician can just listen to a piece and play it in the next town over. A poet or storyteller can just memorize a work and retell it. | |
| ▲ | 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | Terr_ an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I support copyright reform, but that history has a large portion of "get lucky while sucking-up to the local rich dudes for a patron", which... isn't ideal either. |
|
|
| ▲ | marssaxman an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, absolutely, and that is why history shows so few examples of any art having been created prior to the invention of copyright: nobody had any reason to do it. |
| |
| ▲ | dmitrygr an hour ago | parent [-] | | Prior to the invention of copyright, it was not very cheap or easy to make a faithful copy of something. Books had to be type set by hand, before the printing press they had to be copied by hand. Photography of good enough quality to reproduce a painting is very very recent. So is ability to record a play well enough to enjoy it like you are there later. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | foobar1726 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You should check out this thing called open source software |
| |
| ▲ | bachmeier an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > You should check out this thing called open source software Open source actually demonstrates that copyright serves a purpose. There are still customers for non-open software, even when open alternatives exist, so the ability to monetize brings new offerings to the economy. | |
| ▲ | deaton 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Open source software is unique in that it takes little to no capital investment to create. People post free art too. It doesn't mean that Game of Thrones didn't cost anything to produce. | |
| ▲ | koonsolo an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You should check out this thing called GPL that is the standard license of open source projects like Linux, and heavily depends on copyright laws. Or are you suggesting open source software is public domain? | | |
| ▲ | 4chandaily 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You may want to review your history. The GPL is copyleft -it only exists to subvert copyright law by using it against itself in a sort of intellectual legal judo. If "IP" laws were not as they were, there would be no need for the GPL. Software would be Free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft | | |
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Even if companies didn't have copyright protection on their source code, that doesn't mean they'd post it all on the internet for anybody to freely download. | |
| ▲ | koonsolo 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are not a developer so you don't understand you can compile to a binary without revealing your sources? No copyright -> No GPL -> anyone can release their own close source version of open source software. Why do you think GPL was create in the first place? We always had public domain you know. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nehal3m 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is naive in the opposite. Creators gonna create. |
| |
| ▲ | modriano an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Creators can only create as long as they can sustain the costs of creating (including opportunity cost). | |
| ▲ | Jtarii an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who is giving a creator millions of dollars to create something if there is no guaranteed path to recouping production costs. Are we going the communist soviet union route where everything is decided by central committee? | | |
| ▲ | nehal3m an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That is not the only scale to create on. Also, Linux is free. There’s more than one way to make something available. | | |
| ▲ | Jtarii an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Just a fundamental disagreement then. I want to live in the world that created The Lord of the Rings. | |
| ▲ | koonsolo an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Linux is clearly not public domain as it has a GPL license. And GPL heavily depends on copyright laws. |
| |
| ▲ | epicide an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Capitalists who capitalize on creative outlets need capital to incentivize them to do so. It's basically circular. Those of us who create for creation's sake need no other reason. I create because I want to, not because I want to use it to gain capital. Sure, those lines get muddy when you want to do it professionally, but that's a separate argument. | | |
| ▲ | Jtarii an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >Those of us who create for creation's sake need no other reason. I create because I want to, not because I want to use it to gain capital. How do you create without capital? To make a film you need a camera crew, a sound crew, set designers, caterers, a director, scriptwriters. A world without professional creatives is so much poorer than the world we already have. Why would you give it up just for some vague notion of ideological purity. | | |
| ▲ | epicide an hour ago | parent [-] | | You absolutely do not need a camera crew, a sound crew, set designers, and caterers to make a film. You need a director and scriptwriters, but those can be the same person. Do many film sets have all those? Absolutely. But one can still make a film without them. Some of the best films ever created were mostly the product of one person with a budget less than half that of the average car. Would you be able to create big-budget movies without said big budget? Of course not. I obviously like some of those too, but who's to say that the larger budget made them better? It feels like you're conflating art creation with art business, but they are not the same thing. | | |
| ▲ | Jtarii an hour ago | parent [-] | | I suppose you are okay with all animated films being impossible to create then. >I obviously like some of those too, but who's to say that the larger budget made them better? If you legitimately believe something like 2001: A Space Odyssey would be as good with a budget of $10,000 then that just seems delusional. The world you want is one in which the only people who can create things are people who are wealthy by other means, there is no pathway for a talented but poor kid to go from making home movies to working on films without IP laws. They must abandon their dreams and go work in the coal mines or whatever. It is dystopian. I want the most amount of people possible to be able to work as professional creatives because it enriches my life and the lives of everyone in the country I live in. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jonathanstrange an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The point is that without copyright you can' do it professionally. Someone will just sell whatever you created for you and you will not get a cent from it. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | enraged_camel 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >> If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. You do realize people created and shared things long before copyright became a thing, right? |
| |
| ▲ | Jtarii an hour ago | parent [-] | | Can you explain how something like the Lord of the Rings film series gets created in a world with no IP laws. | | |
| ▲ | seandoe an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Many versions are made, the best ones get the most views. You don't need huge budgets and guaranteed revenue to make great art. In fact, I'd argue it's often the opposite. Most big budget movies suck these days. | | |
| ▲ | Jtarii an hour ago | parent [-] | | Where is the money coming from? Who is financing the production? |
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
