Copyright Laws

It isn't discussed that much anymore in most political spheres, but I was just wondering what some of Sup Forums thinks about modern copyright laws? Are they wrong, or do you think a company has a right to keep ideas longer than the authors life?

Other urls found in this thread:

theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-missing-20th-century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish/255282/
medium.com/@lessig/on-what-should-happen-if-the-unthinkable-happens-b6915cbc543d
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Pure cancer.
t. flag

Is copying something really stealing? You are not taking away anything

Some would argue that the problem is stealing the credit for creating the work rather than the work itself.

Sure but you don't own the credit right? The credit is something other people view of you and you don't really own the thoughts of other people. Or am I missing something?

Copyright is a legal concept, and so purpose of copyright is to protect the legal right of an author to profit from his own works, as they are technically his property. Most of the controversy comes in when trying to decide how long after the death of an author his works should remain under strict copyright. The current law is that if a corporation is involved, the work can remain copyrighted for up to 95 years after the authors death, where the original law stated only 14. It depends on whether you believe that a work should be held under copyright even if the author of the work can no longer benefit from it.

Disney is working hard to get this changed. They don't want anything going in to public domain

That was one of the main things in TPP

The way I see it, there is no copy right but if we take the current system as a starting point the only consistent thing to say would be just as long as the creator lives. Everything else seems to be arbitrary and only leads to companies lobbing to expand it (see your pic).

That's partly why I think they're either responsible for or intentionally ignoring all those sick Spider-Man/Elsa videos on YouTube. They want to create a panic about what happens if they aren't allowed to retain control of their characters (Mickey is set to go PD in 2023) and/or abolish Fair Use. Other corporations may be in on it too.

Copyright law and the extensions and revisions it has received in the last century are part of the reason we find ourselves in the cultural mess we are in now. With all of the means of influencing a culture and communicating values to succeeding generations tucked away behind a pay wall something as lively and unpredictable as human cultural evolution becomes controllable to a certain extent. In its present form copyright law is evil.

Ideally copyright would last for 14 years and be non-transferrable to another person or entity. This would allow the creator of a work to profit from it while also allowing culture to thrive and grow naturally by ensuring a healthy public domain.

Sadly, this subject is boring as fuck for most people so it doesn't get the attention it deserves.

Pretty surreal to see an AnCap meme flag advocate against the existence of copyright
it's interesting the effect Disney has had on copyright law, especially when they are so gung-ho about buying the rights to properties previously owned by other corporations.

I think there's an argument that could be made about a company trying to protect their image, but I think that extremely long copyright periods are a net detriment to society

Have you read my previous posts where I described the reasoning behind my opposition against copyright?
If there is something wrong with my argument please tell me

So long as the protection of intellectual property produces incentives to create things that ultimately benefit us all, I'm all for it.

Logical extreme: If the consumption of art I have nothing to do with can be taxed in such a way that I benefit, I'm all for it.

Life is complicated.

If you ever visit Disney studios, go see their library. They have catalogued ever single item that the corporation owns in preparation of potential lawsuits.

I'm not saying I disagree, I just find it funny when most AnCaps are all about muh private property

Yes, it's more than a little scary. It was to retain ownership of Mickey Mouse in the 70s which was the main reason Disney pushed for copyright to be extended, and then kept trying to amend it even further.

If you read the biography 'The Magic Kingdom' it gives a lot of insight into just how bad a businessman Walt Disney was when he got started and how untruthful he was about when things were created (The actual first Mickey cartoon, Plane Crazy, was denied to exist for decades because someone else still owned the rights to it).

Japan get's it right, I wonder why that is

I can definitely believe that

Copyright is an artificial monopoly created by the government to benefit publishers (not artists). It has no valid reason for existing anymore (and barely had one in the past).
Copyright is literally censorship (I mean literally literally). It censors what can and can not be shared, created, or derived. This censorship power is being used more and more obviously, but has always existed.
Copyright concentrates ownership of culture and allows those concentrated owners to censor all others.
Fraud and Trademark laws can handle attribution and credit.

"Ken Akamatsu, creator of Japanese manga series Love Hina and Mahou Sensei Negima!, expressed concern the agreement could decimate the derivative dōjinshi (self-published) works prevalent in Japan. Akamatsu argued that the TPP 'would destroy derivative dōjinshi. And as a result, the power of the entire manga industry would also diminish.' - the Wiki on TPP
It's because of the mangas

I'm torn because I recognize the reason we have copyright as a concept and legal tool. It makes sense and is right to protect the creator's rights and make sure they get credit for their work.

However I hate how people use patents and copyrights to troll or exploit. Like Disney trying to sue deadmau5 for having moose ears. It's petty. Or what Marvel/DC do and make a super hero/villain with a name and then never use them again, so they own that name.

I think when the author dies that's when things enter public domain if they don't leave any specific directions for their property in their will. Copyright should make sure the original creator gets credit. But shouldn't be used to prevent other creators for the sake of it basically.

Everytime Mickey Mouse comes up for public domain, millions of lobbying dollars go out, and copyright gets longer.
So many books are unavailable due to unknown author, have to wait for copyright to expire

>credit
Not copyright. Fraud and/or Trademark. Plagiarism isn't handled by copyright law.

Not just manga, the guy who made Tohou also won't release it in the west because copyright would fuck over that entire community

They're irrelevant. The world is "oral" now, not literary. Its a practice in futility.

>Pretty surreal to see an AnCap meme flag advocate against the existence of copyright

Minor off-topic issue in this thread, but that irks me too. Ancap flags literally know nothing about capitalism or economics, they're just meme-followers and socialists trying to make capitalism look bad by creating ridiculous self-defeating arguments.

>it's interesting the effect Disney has had on copyright law, especially when they are so gung-ho about buying the rights to properties previously owned by other corporations.

Yeah that's what gets me too. Especially how Disney's whole core content is all sniped from previously written stuff. Like Alice in Wonderland was a novel series. Tarzan was too. They buy up all these very classic, publically shared stories and then try to stamp their name all over them like they created them originally. That's Disney. That's what they're doing to Marvel too, just gutting all the substance of the brand for the style.

Our culture is being stolen from us.
Jews own your childhood inspirations. Jews control what you can use as creative inspiration. Jews enslaved the giants whose shoulders we stand upon.

theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-missing-20th-century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish/255282/

Copyright is cancer


t.unironic pirate

I don't disagree with you but was there anything with the arguments I made?

The issue with copyright laws is that they're not protecting someone's work - they're denying everyone else the ability to use it.

And more often than not (I'd safely say 99% of the cases), that work is fully based on something that is already established for free by society, be it a common legend that was plagiarized and turned into a book, or a game using an open coding language with open source free compilers, or maybe a movie based on the same thing the book is based, or why not a rap song which has the rhythm of an old classical song which is not guarded by copyright laws, or even a technological piece which is completely based on physical laws which are discovered for completely free. To say that you're stealing from those companies is to also acknowledge that they're stealing from society's pool of free stuff and wouldn't exist without them

See the first statement ofWhile it is used primarily nowadays to stop works from being used by others, the original purpose of copyright law was to provide an incentive for authors to create, which is why it ended shortly after one's death.

>the original purpose of copyright law was to provide an incentive for authors to create, which is why it ended shortly after one's death.
Which is not what actually happens, as open source stuff is created en masse for absolutely free. I'm talking "not even a donation button"-tier free. Stories are created for free for the sake of creating stories. People compose music on their soundclouds for free for the sake of doing that. People draw art for the sake of drawing and stroking their own egos. And usually, all that open source stuff lags just slightly behind the paid version of it - yes, that's true, the difference between Windows 10 which is produced by a company with more than half a trillion of market capitalization and Linux is so thin that it's basically the same thing

I want to even double down on that - copyright doesn't incentivize invention, it impairs it because you have a very fat set of rules over what is actually yours after you invent it (since someone patented it first regardless if you haven't even seen the patent and completely reinvented it) and what you can actually implement in your products without getting sued into pulling it out of the market. This creates a lot of anxiety which impairs that strong desire to invent and explore and slaps it with the cold reality of the regulated market. And lastly, humanity invented the majority of things far before copyright even existed - it basically changed nothing.

>expecting AnCap to be FOR copyright laws

As I understand it, you could take a product lock, stock, and key, but rebrand it to then sell it.
I don’t see anything wrong there, China does this all the time.

It could create an incentive to offer out of this world value to the consumer because you want to make a product so well that its quality can’t be beat at the price range.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your argument was that people don't own each other's thoughts, no? But the point of copyright is to make sure the original owner of the idea gets credit and actually owns it.

You're argument isn't wrong, but just kind of smells Marxist-y. Because one of the basic tenets of capitalism is property rights and protection. Without that flag your post would have just been an innocent musing, but with that flag it makes it look like you didn't do your homework?

All information exists eternally in the ether (which is also known as 'the akashic records'). So-called 'copyright' is copyWRONG. Copyright is an EVIL CONCEPT. The base state of EVERYTHING in existence is ENERGETIC WAVE-FORM INFORMATION. You can call this 'the akashic records', if you want. This is how psychometry works - you pick up an object and can learn about that object's history by accessing the base state of that object (which is an energetic wave-form information field). Everything is made of energetic wave-form information fields. EVERYTHING. This is why when you realise any fundamental truth, it seems so familiar - it's because you have simply REMEMBERED the innate wisdom of your TRUE IDENTITY as an ETERNAL SOUL. In this sense, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be truly creative. 'Our' thoughts are NOT our own, we have simply tuned into thoughts that ETERNALLY EXIST in the ether. George Lucas did NOT create Star Wars, because the IDEA for Star Wars ETERNALLY EXISTS in the ether.

>Because one of the basic tenets of capitalism is property rights and protection
Of physically-existing things which can only be stolen if another person is hurt, yes

>the original purpose of copyright law was to provide an incentive for authors to create, which is why it ended shortly after one's death.

But what about large collaborative projects facilitated by corporations?

Thank you

If you think about it, "intellectual property" is a fabrication created and supported by nothing else than government force.

It will always be illogical, and it will never be good for the economy.

y'know what makes me sad? Lawrence Lessig in 2017.

he used to be my idol back in the late 00s, when I was first getting into Internet culture and shit, going through my Sup Forums libertarian phase. he's from the same town I'm from, and his anti-copyright work back in the day was truly inspiring.

now he's advocating for the abolishing of the Electoral College, despite being from South Dakota, where we barely get any say in who becomes President as is WITH the Electoral College. and he's actually, literally still shilling for ways that Hillary could totally still become the President, guys: medium.com/@lessig/on-what-should-happen-if-the-unthinkable-happens-b6915cbc543d

what happened to him, Sup Forums? why did he turn into such a piece of political garbage, completely dropping his anti-copyright stuff in recent years in favor of "le drumpf" nonsense? did (((they))) get to him, or is he just a fucking sellout?

I haven't reread "Free Culture" since like 2011 but I remember it being based as fuck, a true redpill as to the nature of modern US copyright law and how fucked up it is that lobbyists continually extend copyright dates so the massive cash cows can continue to be milked.

do we have any /ourguy/s left, speaking out against copyright bullshit? or was Lessig the last one?

Corporations create gray areas in several legal principles, and copyright is no exception. I would argue that even if it was facilitated by a corporation, copyright should end after the death of all the authors, but that probably isn't legally sound, especially when the work is stated to be done "for hire".

Why should random people benefit from a creator's work instead of his family once he's dead?

Why should the rights be predicated on the life and death of the author? If the author wanted to sell all rights to their work, the work would become public domain should he be hit by a bus. This would really limit the sale and resale value of the rights for no good reason...

How is it wrong to wish to give credit to the soul, and resources for his body and mind to propagate and share that eternal meme in that physical reality?
I'm not arguing FOR copyright, just asking why it's wrong(at it's base), and if there's another viewpoint that satisfies both the physical presence and the ethereal?

I hate using christcuck words but they're absolutely demonic
Shit got way out of hand in the 60's

I like these laws specifically because nobody deserves to profit off Bill Watterson's works

For better or worse, we legally regard copyright as a property that can be bought and sold between people and corporations.
However, as a consequence of this, one could argue that if the property remains in the ownership of the author for his whole life, and he never gives this right to anybody else in the circumstance of his death, it becomes a part of the public domain, regardless of monetary value of the work.

Yeah but physical property doesn't exist without intellectual property. That's what people don't understand, it's about THE IDEA too.

Watterson is still alive, and also, basing your opinion of legal matters off emotional attachment to a given creator is progressive shitlib-tier thinking. I love Watterson's works too, but I don't see why they shouldn't enter the public domain after a given number of years after his death... just like everything else.

you disparage "christcucks" in your previous post but it brings up an interesting idea—what if modern copyright laws existed a thousand years ago, and the Vatican held a Disneyesque perma-copyright on the Bible? Protestantism wouldn't've been able to branch off, and alternate versions/translations of the Bible would be illegal.

however, as it stands, this not being the case, the Bible is public domain, and basically all of Western literature and much of Western art is based off it in one way or another. once an idea or set of ideas is so pervasive in the public unconscious, long after the death(s) of the original creator(s), being made "public domain" just makes sense.

at some point, if ideas stick around in the minds of the people long after the creator(s) are dead, it's just common sense to designate the ideas as "public domain".

Alright, let me explain to you what copyright laws currently are.

I own a HDD, correct? This HDD allows for electrons inside it to point in certain direction to assemble a representation of information that I can view through the monitor. I paid the complete price for this HDD and I didn't agree to any legal clauses before acquiring it (like you do in the case of guns and agreeing to not shoot at people for an example), therefor I am in full possession and control of it

Here's the fun part - I'm actually not. Here's the funner part - some asshole overseas who has absolutely nothing to do with me, is, or at least for the part of my HDD where the electron spin has pointed into the given direction to assemble the information he supposedly "owns". With the current copyright laws, I am legally denied the ability to do pretty much anything with that partition of the HDD, up to even manually assembling that information on my own. Yes, if I do so and assemble it completely on my own, I'm still breaking the law by both using it and specifically breaking it if I exercise my right of freedom of speech to transmit that information to someone else, without hurting ANYONE in the process of doing so, neither monetarily nor physically.

This is the core distinction from how the real physical world functions and how they've made the virtual to function - I can cook an exact 1:1 burger to what is being sold in any food chain and consume/sell it/give it to friends and I'm doing nothing against the law. But as soon as it comes to my HDD, I'm breaking at least a couple different laws.

I'm pretty sure if you tried to sell a burger that was 1:1 the same recipe as McDonald's you would have a lawsuit on you fairly quickly.

>Alright, let me explain to you what copyright laws currently are.

I'm talking about intellectual property needing to be protected somehow, not that the current legal system is the best way to do that.

>I'm pretty sure if you tried to sell a burger that was 1:1 the same recipe as McDonald's you would have a lawsuit on you fairly quickly.
Actually debatable if in different states or even countries. In that case I have a very direct proof that I used my own resources since you can't obviously copy-paste something from their inventory and it's very hard to claim ownership over bread with meat in between, but yes, you're correct, the IP laws have managed to extend to physical patents in the US and the US on the other hand tries very hard to extend them to the rest of the world (thank god that SOPA/PIPA failed)

>I'm talking about intellectual property needing to be protected somehow
Why? Did Euler protect his imaginary numbers with a copyright and ban all mathematicians from using them? Should he? Should Feynman protect his diagrams, or maybe Nietzsche protect his philosophy? Maybe those laws didn't quite exist back then, should the modern scientists do that instead? Isn't science THE Intellectual Property of humanity after all, and doesn't it usually require millions in R&D?
Oh what's that, you're trying to say that it's impossible to protect such ideas because once a single person is aware of it then everyone else in the academia is aware of how that new invention functions since they can just effortlessly transmit that information around the world without hurting anyone in the process or breaking any laws at all?

>tl;dr - stop biting into the myth that there's an "intellectual property" and that someone deserves anything for creating something immaterial. Capitalism is about managing the material and trying to apply it to the immaterial which is of infinite quantity achieves nothing but some retarded and distorted supply and demand chart where the supply is infinite yet the price doesn't go down because the government guarantees the efficient extortion of that constant price from the market

>Why?

Why don't you come up an idea and I steal it, say I came up with it and get all the money and credit from it then. I assuming you're fine with this.

>say I came up with it and get all the money and credit from it then
This is the problem - in the hypothetical world I'm describing you wouldn't make any money from it either because you'd just get pirated completely, as for the credit, it's very easy to claim it as my own by publishing my (free) paper and pointing out the date of publication once you attempt to claim credit. Oh by the way, if I did come up with the idea and actually implemented it, it would be free to begin with so not a single person would pay money for yours in the first place

they need to be lowered to 15 years. fuck old faggots/companies keeping shit to themselves and reusing the same shit over and over and over for years. force new ideas

Copyright should expire 14 years after the publishing date.

That's sufficient to ensure authors profit from their works, yet avoid corporate kikery.

Preach!

Property, supply and demand are only applicable in the real world. Culture and Information are for everyone who got them and heard/read them.

Inventions should be the only ones that get protection and only for the duration of the inventors life, with work for hire not transferring the rights to the on to hire but simply giving default usage access but not ownership, and discoveries of natural stuff not being something anyone can trademark.

This imho would be the best policy to encourage culture and invention.