Copyright is essential to the fabric of our current entertainment system. Unfortunately its being abused to its limit by mega corporations that have armies of lawyers who can bully anyone into...
Copyright is essential to the fabric of our current entertainment system. Unfortunately its being abused to its limit by mega corporations that have armies of lawyers who can bully anyone into capitulating at will. The current system could probably be dissolved and nothing would change because of how powerful companies like Disney are.
Thats really one of the main points... Copyright is borderline useless without an army of lawyers. And if you have an army of laywers, actual legal protection is merely one tool in the warchest.
Thats really one of the main points...
Copyright is borderline useless without an army of lawyers. And if you have an army of laywers, actual legal protection is merely one tool in the warchest.
If anything, the amount of time awarded for copyright should be getting shorter instead of extending longer. I think what works better entirely is attribution and a percentage share of residual...
If anything, the amount of time awarded for copyright should be getting shorter instead of extending longer. I think what works better entirely is attribution and a percentage share of residual royalties. If someone creates something which has significant impact on society, then there probably should be some window of opportunity where the creator can benefit unchallenged. But very quickly, as soon as there is a shift in public consumption, it should be released to the public domain. Estates should never be granted extension.
Fashion and academia are two especially brutal fields with very high levels of burnout. In fashion, branding and manufacturing are the differentiating competitive advantages. Small designers and...
The fashion industry is effectively copyright-free. Anyone can come up with a new design for a dress. If the design is successful, it will be copied and it is unpractical to try to enforce copyright. Thus, fashion designers must constantly out-innovate the competition.
Researchers freely hand over the copyright to publishers in exchange for nothing. Researchers are driven to invent and innovate because their remuneration and social status depends on their reputation. If anything, copyright on research work slows down progress.
Fashion and academia are two especially brutal fields with very high levels of burnout. In fashion, branding and manufacturing are the differentiating competitive advantages. Small designers and companies get crushed by big companies like Zara and Shein that can and do steal designs and bring them to market in mere days.
One very interesting thing to note here is how the entertainment industry at large, usually a defender of all things copyright, is completely ignoring it when it comes to AI. (And I'm talking...
One very interesting thing to note here is how the entertainment industry at large, usually a defender of all things copyright, is completely ignoring it when it comes to AI. (And I'm talking about the corporation's ofcourse, not the actual creators who are, justifiably, raising concerns)
There are merits to the idea of copyright, but it's a heavily abused and misused system. Instead of actually protecting artists, inventors and creatives, it's main purpose now is to further defend entrenched corporate interests. The current AI craze just exposes that once more, and I honestly don't see anything changing here. Those that are actively harmed by copyright simply do not have the political clout to fight for any legislation in their favour, and with the further concentration of the entertainment industry such as the WB merger, this will only get worse. It's a symptom of capitalism and can only be reigned in by an active rejection of neo-liberal thought by politicians and them combatting the interests of big pharma, entertainment, transportation, tech and other industries, which just won't happen.
Copyright is in a sense, a deeply contradictory idea. It's the supposed protection of property rights, but at the expense of those same property rights. The restriction copyright puts on the...
Copyright is in a sense, a deeply contradictory idea. It's the supposed protection of property rights, but at the expense of those same property rights. The restriction copyright puts on the things you buy has converted a huge swath of products from things you own to rent-seeking licenses you've been granted temporary use of.
Does humanity need copyright? No, property itself not a given for the human experience. Does capitalism need copyright? Perhaps. Does it need the copyright system, the baroque and insanely exploitative system that does nothing but concentrate wealth for the upper class and seek rent? Absolutely not.
Copyright is essential to the fabric of our current entertainment system. Unfortunately its being abused to its limit by mega corporations that have armies of lawyers who can bully anyone into capitulating at will. The current system could probably be dissolved and nothing would change because of how powerful companies like Disney are.
Thats really one of the main points...
Copyright is borderline useless without an army of lawyers. And if you have an army of laywers, actual legal protection is merely one tool in the warchest.
Mind the article is 11 years old now. No less relevant, except this was pre-Disney Star Wars.
If anything, the amount of time awarded for copyright should be getting shorter instead of extending longer. I think what works better entirely is attribution and a percentage share of residual royalties. If someone creates something which has significant impact on society, then there probably should be some window of opportunity where the creator can benefit unchallenged. But very quickly, as soon as there is a shift in public consumption, it should be released to the public domain. Estates should never be granted extension.
Fashion and academia are two especially brutal fields with very high levels of burnout. In fashion, branding and manufacturing are the differentiating competitive advantages. Small designers and companies get crushed by big companies like Zara and Shein that can and do steal designs and bring them to market in mere days.
One very interesting thing to note here is how the entertainment industry at large, usually a defender of all things copyright, is completely ignoring it when it comes to AI. (And I'm talking about the corporation's ofcourse, not the actual creators who are, justifiably, raising concerns)
There are merits to the idea of copyright, but it's a heavily abused and misused system. Instead of actually protecting artists, inventors and creatives, it's main purpose now is to further defend entrenched corporate interests. The current AI craze just exposes that once more, and I honestly don't see anything changing here. Those that are actively harmed by copyright simply do not have the political clout to fight for any legislation in their favour, and with the further concentration of the entertainment industry such as the WB merger, this will only get worse. It's a symptom of capitalism and can only be reigned in by an active rejection of neo-liberal thought by politicians and them combatting the interests of big pharma, entertainment, transportation, tech and other industries, which just won't happen.
Copyright is in a sense, a deeply contradictory idea. It's the supposed protection of property rights, but at the expense of those same property rights. The restriction copyright puts on the things you buy has converted a huge swath of products from things you own to rent-seeking licenses you've been granted temporary use of.
Does humanity need copyright? No, property itself not a given for the human experience. Does capitalism need copyright? Perhaps. Does it need the copyright system, the baroque and insanely exploitative system that does nothing but concentrate wealth for the upper class and seek rent? Absolutely not.