• Oka@sopuli.xyz
    18·
    18 hours ago

    I disagree with that logic, but using things for non-commercial use is fine. It’s not yours, you dont own the rights to it, but you are free to borrow it for personal purposes, artistic sampling, or similar.

    Nothing is owned, everything is borrowed, hoarding is immoral. Give back to your community.

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
      2·
      9 hours ago

      IMO it should be extended to commercial use (if we keep doing commerce with things that can be copied 1:1, anyway). Of course not 1:1 copies under a different name, but there should definitely be more freedom for sampling and remix (in a general sense, not just in the context of music). The current laws are extremely restrictive. Guy in my country has been having legal battles for over two decades over sampling half a measure of drums (Pelham vs Kraftwerk).

      We really need to figure out a way to pay artists that doesn’t come with unnecessary restrictions on art.

      • Oka@sopuli.xyz
        11·
        8 hours ago

        “How do we pay artists”

        What if we didn’t pay anyone? What if farmers gave crops to cooks, who cooked for the people, some of those people are artists or authors, who create art for the people. Some of the people are musicians or singers or performers who entertain the people. Some of the people are builders and lumberjacks who build shelters for the people.

        I think this could scale. A government could oversee production and create jobs where needed, such as being able to have factories that produce phones that only come with what you want or need, none of the bloat or adware we get now. No new version every year, or if they do, they can pass down older versions to next generations, and recycle the oldest or broken phones.

        What if everyone had a laptop to network and be digitally productive, with a reliable connection to the internet. We would be right where we are now, except everyone is thriving. They dont get to be picky, but their needs can be met.

        • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
          2·
          5 hours ago

          Surely, we can figure out a way to feed artists without requiring a full-on revolution. Changing the way we pay artists is a LOT easier than doing a revolution and implementing a new system that actually has staying power.

    • stray@pawb.social
      3·
      14 hours ago

      Isn’t the person who owns the rights despite nothing being owned the one doing the hoarding?

      • Oka@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        8 hours ago

        I see what you’re saying. I think a better way to express it is saying that the person who created it is acknowledged as the creator, and derivative works should be a certain amount of “different”, otherwise they are reproductions rather than original.

  • gegil@sopuli.xyz
    124·
    18 hours ago

    I disagree. On my opinion, copyright has its place for protecting author’s work. The problem with it as always comes from large corporations, which abuse the law to sue individuals and get as much profit.

      • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
        1·
        34 minutes ago

        You’re exactly right.

        But maybe we should continue to try a few more years of treating corporations like really big evil people that can abuse everyone smaller than them, kill the planet, and commit crimes, while avoiding consequences.

        I can see both sides. (This is sarcasm. We may yet need to yeet the folks pushing for corporate personhood a long way off a short cliff.)

      • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
        7·
        16 hours ago

        Also, copyrights should expire in a more reasonable timeframe. Probably something around 10-20 years. (Rather than our current US absurdity of ‘Entire life of the creator +70 years’.)

        But, also, there needs to be some accommodation for collaborative works, especially large-scale collaborative works with dozens or hundreds of creators contributing. (Like a big-budget movie or video game.) Trying to navigate copyright issues on something like that with only individual copyrights would be a nightmare. You need some mechanism to support group ownership of a copyright, including a way for the group to delegate certain rights and responsibilities to one individual who represents the group’s interests.

        I do, however, think that only the group who actually worked on the project should be able to own that copyright. They could license it to companies for distribution, but ownership of the copyright should always remain with the creators who directly worked on it. No copyright should ever be owned by any corporation at all or by any person who didn’t contribute to the project.