The key problem is that copyright infringement by a private individual is regarded by the court as something so serious that it negates the right to privacy. It’s a sign of the twisted values that copyright has succeeded on imposing on many legal systems. It equates the mere copying of a digital file with serious crimes that merit a prison sentence, an evident absurdity.
This is a good example of how copyright’s continuing obsession with ownership and control of digital material is warping the entire legal system in the EU. What was supposed to be simply a fair way of rewarding creators has resulted in a monstrous system of routine government surveillance carried out on hundreds of millions of innocent people just in case they copy a digital file.
Lol yeah.
Good luck spending time and money investing in something that you know will have zero legal protection as ‘yours’ after you go to market.
I personally feel that a copyright does give confidence to product developers to actually develop products. If they felt they weren’t going to get anything for their work they just wouldn’t bother and our tech advancement would stall significantly.
You need money to defend your copyright in court, otherwise it’s pretty meaningless
But the thing is, we don’t need to develop products. New products are just further resource usage, more greenhouse gasses, more “infinite growth”. Also, a company or individual having “an edge” in competition by developing something first is simply waste of resources. Now only they are allowed to improve upon it, make it more efficient, whatever. If this didn’t exist, yea they’d be incentivized less to create it in the first place, but also now everyone could take it and make it better.
We have to go away from thinking as individuals in the direction of thinking as humanity.
I’d argue that it’s naive to think we can ever think non-individually as a species. Maybe I’ve just become cynical as I’ve aged and experienced though, not to say you haven’t also experienced - more that, if you have, your experiences have clearly been very different to my own.
“No copyright” is usually flaunted by people who haven’t created single thing of value (monetary or otherwise). Who never give, but always first to take.
To no one’s surpise it’s now a go-to argument of “statistical engine enthusiasts”.
Copyright sure was useful for all the artists who had their creations scraped from the “open web,” huh (I am in this bucket). It would literally bankrupt me to enforce it.
Copyright only serves the wealthy, and rarely if ever protects I normal individuals who are well enough off to afford legal remedy. This is due to the cost to enforce, which is beyond most creators and a drop in the bucket for the wealthy. It is intended to and has been updated consistently to do just that.
We need some kind of protection, but historically copyright ain’t it.
I’m all up for improvement or better system.
I’m against anarchy and copyright abolishment all toghether.
Implementing a better system would effectively abolish copyright, but I’m pretty sure most people agree with your sentiment.
I’m an edge case where I don’t believe ideas/land/medicine/stars etc can’t or shouldn’t be “owned” by any one entity. It’s not feasible to expect it in practice, of course. But humans love to carve things up and arbitrarily assert ownership. Some traditional Native American ideas on this are the closest to what I’m chipping away at.