Copyright should only apply to paid copies
2 years ago
https://picarto.tv/SimonAquarius for my livestreams, everyone's invited
https://www.patreon.com/simonaquarius to support my comic on Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/simonaquarius to support my comic on Patreon
Copyright seems to have become more about the loss of potential gains than it has been about ensuring a person doesn't sell copies of someone elses products for profit.
Like, music piracy used to be about cracking down on people selling copies of records and things, but after a time it became more about stopping people sharing free copies of everything from games to movies, novels and shows. In some cases people try to sell these things, resellers buy out consoles and jack up the prices to create artificial scarcity which ultimately damages game sales in the long run (hence why it should be stopped).
The thing is that not everyone can afford to buy these products, and just because there's no way to pirate things doesn't mean these people will pay for everything now, it just means they will see less things.
Consider the radio. If everyone had to pay to listen, how many people would have had radios in their cars? Ultimately it's the radio broadcaster footing the bill, the same way that pirates pay for the product before distributing it freely. The difference is that the broadcaster is paying a lot more and in return relies on ads to keep this going, while the pirates in most cases do so at their own expense. Internet memes are the simplest form of piracy, still gets affected by takedowns when the corporations feel like it.
I feel that there should be two separate things, paid works, and unpaid works. If anything makes any kind of profit then it should have all the laws and regulations we regularly deal with, even if it's a non-profit, but if it's unpaid at all, then no company should be able to do anything about it.
Like, music piracy used to be about cracking down on people selling copies of records and things, but after a time it became more about stopping people sharing free copies of everything from games to movies, novels and shows. In some cases people try to sell these things, resellers buy out consoles and jack up the prices to create artificial scarcity which ultimately damages game sales in the long run (hence why it should be stopped).
The thing is that not everyone can afford to buy these products, and just because there's no way to pirate things doesn't mean these people will pay for everything now, it just means they will see less things.
Consider the radio. If everyone had to pay to listen, how many people would have had radios in their cars? Ultimately it's the radio broadcaster footing the bill, the same way that pirates pay for the product before distributing it freely. The difference is that the broadcaster is paying a lot more and in return relies on ads to keep this going, while the pirates in most cases do so at their own expense. Internet memes are the simplest form of piracy, still gets affected by takedowns when the corporations feel like it.
I feel that there should be two separate things, paid works, and unpaid works. If anything makes any kind of profit then it should have all the laws and regulations we regularly deal with, even if it's a non-profit, but if it's unpaid at all, then no company should be able to do anything about it.
FA+


bobingabout
WhiteChimera
Samhat1
MrSandwichesTheSecond
Like, how am I supposed to get references without paying for a book or a film? Do I just travel back to the 1920s and take photos myself?
But I understand that you are unhappy that media giants are exterminating piracy?
I'm unhappy that I can buy old films explicitly for use as background references, but can't screenshot them to put into my reference file because of DRM. I'm unhappy that Chrono Resurrection was cancelled along with hundreds of other fan games over the years despite how few of them had any intentions of making a profit from sales. I can't name a fandom that doesn't in some way infringe on copyright, and all it would take is a particularly anti-furry CEO buying the rights for many shows to sue the fandom into non-existence. I'd rather there be some more legal protections than a reliance on the goodwill of a corporation.
but I will support your opinion.
The author is saying that's kind of dumb and that copyright should only be enforced if someone's making money off whatever's being given out.
The original intent was to provide the creatives who make said "property" with a means of revenue from it. However our system is not such that the creatives generally own their creations anymore, rather some non-creative suits own it by means of leveraging their pre-existing ownership over the means of creation and or distribution of creative works. The creatives are in most instances paid a salary or hourly wage to create while the owners can reap the value of those creations just a step or two shy of in-perpetuity.
This system of ownership is annoying when it's creative expression the likes of animation, music, or other arts however this has increasingly worsening problems when it's anything with greater stakes. Such as proprietary components of medical equipment. Either pay the company's monopoly price or live in pain/illness or just die. Even if it isn't the patient who's the expected payer of said monopoly price in our modern dystopias the cost is invariably primarily passed onto them as demand for medical care is generally quite inelastic.