• SaraTonin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    They don’t need to die, they need to go back to what they used to be. The first copyright law was called the Statute of Anne and it covered a work for 14 years.

    That’s a totally reasonable amount of time for an author/publisher to make their money. And it’s reasonable for creators to want to get paid for their work.

    And then it should be public domain.

    • yunglucifer@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      No, they need to die.

      If you can’t protect your own ideas, you shouldn’t get to rely on the government to do it for you.

      • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        How are you proposing that people protect their own ideas?

        Say you write a book. You self-publish. A big publisher CTRL-C/CTRL-Vs your book and publishes it themselves with their access to distribution networks and advertising budgets. Now you sell 0 copies of your book while the publishing house makes millions.

        What should you have done differently?

        Copyright laws were invented to protect creative people against publishing monopolies.

        • yunglucifer@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          28
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          How is the publisher making money if everyone can copy and redistribute it for free themselves?

          Edit: Loving the downvotes from useful idiots. Keep getting taken for a ride 👍

          • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I can’t believe people disagree with this point I am unable to explain. My utter lack of self awareness and critical thinking skills inform me that they’re all idiots, not I!

            Yuuup.

          • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            You didn’t answer my questions

            To answer yours, beyond what i already laid out in the question itself, the original Night Of The Living Dead has been out of copyright for decades, and yet corporations still make money off it.

            • yunglucifer@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              How do they make money off of it?

              Do they create their own derivative work and then make money off of that because copyright laws prevent people from copying and redistributing it for free?

            • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              People can and will do that Big publishing houses cannot, because of the litigational threat.

              While I don’t uncritically support one side or the other, there are provisions for protecting the small and large alike, and I think there’s no easy answer.

              Everyone thinks the problem is easy to solve until a specific incidence lands in their lap.

                • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  30 minutes ago

                  yes. I’m saying there’s pros and cons to both sides so the solution is not to simply abandon the rule of law, nor is it to pretend that the law fixes everything and operates well.