Chat
Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
im alright with the protection of specific works from copying, but patents can fuck off
'ideas' should not be protected unless there was a reasonable expectation of privacy or compensation
I.E. ideas that were made public without consent or ideas that were part of a sales pitch or something, sure, but the moment that ideas are made public with consent, they should be considered public domain
exclusive right to make something because you happened to be the first one to think of it shouldnt exist, other parties should have the option to directly compete with your product to encourage innovation
also, any trademark law that isnt expressly for consumer protection can fuck off
if i buy a laptop that clearly has the apply logo on it, sure, i should be able to reasonably expect that i am actually buying an apple laptop, with the quality expected of an apple laptop
if im buying a t-shirt with an apple logo on it, or stickers with the apple logo on them, or a phone case with an apple logo on it but that's clearly from a different company there shouldn't be any issue
the moment that ideas are made public with consent, they should be considered public domain
But that's the inventor's choice, right? Patents incentivize publishing inventions: you make your invention public in exchange for exclusivity for 20 years or so.
The other choice they have is to keep it a trade secret, which is kept private for as long as you choose, but you don't get any exclusivity if someone else comes along and invents the same thing on their own.
By creating a system of laws where publication gets rewarded, we encourage those people in that industry to freely publish rather than guarding their secrets to die with them.
This interview with Cory Doctorow is super relevant.
He explains how the music labels have used copyrights power to structure the streaming market AGAINST the interested of the artists. I linked to the relevant timestamp (45:30)
I think copywrite should exist in some form for creative works made by an individual (maybe 20 years with extensions as some series take forever to finish) but for corporations it should be much much shorter or nonexistant. I wonder what would happen if any new groundbreaking tech was automatically public domain. How much more affordable and innovative would everything be?
Copyright should be abolished entirely. But a reasonable length if it needs to exist is maybe 20 years. Think about stuff from 20 years ago. Movies like the first matrix, or games like the original super mario bros. These are classics, no longer something the creators rely on for profit, yet shape our culture.
Copyright is used to harm culture for the sake of profit. An absurdly long copyright period can only harm society for the sake of shareholder profits. Ideally, things should enter the public domain at some point, and ideally at a time where the cultural impact can be felt. Anyone who disagrees with this should believe that disney is an illegitimate business, as almost all of their IPs are things originally in the public domain.
If copyright as it is today existed back when disney started, we wouldn't have beloved disney classics.
As a photographer, the idea of the copyright system being thrown away is horrifying to me. I've already seen my work appear on book covers and all over the internet with zero compensation for my time, energy, skills, or the money I spent making the images. This stuff happening is already morally shrugged off by society, God knows how bad it would be if it was also legal.
Does the idea of shortening it to 10 years as others in the thread have suggested scare you as well?
Maybe 25 years? But there should be an extra provision that the work must remain publicly available for purchase in like form and cost or else the copyright is voided (with a one year grace period to resolve production issues.)
Death of the creator, or in the case of a multi-creator work or a corporation (as in the case of TV and film), death of the last living participant in creation. (In the latter case, corporations would try to assign "creator" status to the youngest baby they can get their hands on in the hopes of making the copyright last 70+ years, but there would have to be adjudication to determine actual involvment.)
25 to 45 years seems like plenty for most of the profit of a work. Maybe 5 years with an option to renew it by the author using the copyright with maximum of 50 years or so. That way abandoned IP or works no longer being published can be used sooner but people who have a series or keeps selling a work can keep control of the IP.
The life of the author plus 70 years bs we have now is insane. It use to be 14 years originally then was 28 years for a good while.
As a software engineer, well, it would be remarkably difficult for my industry to pay its workers if copyright didn't exist.
Like capitalism in general, I believe copyright is a good thing in moderation. When those who profit from something want ever more, and those who rule let them, that's when things go sour.
I do think copyright is essential for protecting smaller artists. However, it has been corrupted by big corporations into something to gain complete control over their creations, which is essentially the exact opposite of its purpose. With this in mind, I would propose two changes:
1: Change copyright to only apply for 10 years. Most smaller creators would have a chance to build up a community by that time, and it lessens the amount of time a corporation can maintain a stranglehold on their IPs.
2: Make a clause that allows for derivative works, as long as the source material is credited clearly and at the beginning of the work. This means works like fangames, fanarts, and fanfictions are all fully legal, and don't have to worry about corporate stranglehold, and also benefits smaller creators, as these works can essentially serve as free advertising.
This obviously isn't a perfect solution, but its almost certainly far better than what we have now, and restores copyright back to its original intended purpose.
As long as copyright is protecting the inventory so that he can make a profit on his work to develop the thing, yes absolutely. 30 years.
That's an interesting question, I'm not happy with the implementation of the copyright nowadays but I haven't the answer of the right implementation. The property over the ideas is not something I like but if you've been working on some IP, would it be fair if other person takes your idea and work and gets benefits using it?