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.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t want to see a end to copyright. I want it restored to what it was. Where the creator had a copyright for limited amount of time then everyone had a copyright to the work.

    Now that time is beyond the amount of time that someone inspired by a copyrighted work could create some derivative of it. Unless you think someone inspired as a child would feel like bringing that inspiration to fulfilment as an elderly adult is going to happen often.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Humanity as we know it existed for ten of thousands of years without copyright. Copyright is the anti-thesis to creation. Everything humans create is iterative. Copyright along with the rest of intellectual property seeks to pervert creation for personal gain.

      Art does not need copyright to survive and I would argue that intellectual property is not needed to promote the arts or science. It is designed to do the opposite which is limit creation to the benefit of the individual.

      What makes this worse is the individual is now the corporation. Do you know that a lot of successful artists, particularly musicians, don’t even own their own works?

      Corporations benefit disproportionally by copyright. They have lobbied for decades to further pervert the flawed intention of copyright and intellectual property to the breaking point. Simply put, going down the road of trying to prove who created what was first is wrong.

      Creation does not happen in a vacuum. Pretending that we create is isolation is farcical. We are great because of all those that came before us.

      The telephone was invented by multiple people. The Wright brothers had European counterparts. These issues around intellectual copyright are a lot more complex than we are ready to admit.

      We have billions of people now. Stop trying to pretend any idea, drawing, tune, or writing is unique. Rude wake up call, it is not.

      • Hackworth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Thank you, I seldom see my own thoughts laid out so clearly. As a practitioner of the Dark Arts (marketing), this union of commerce and art is a foul bargain. I think it’s time the two had some time apart to work on themselves.

      • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Art 100% needs copyright. There is a reason forgery is a crime. Copyright is meant to protect small creators. Yes it is being abused by corporations but the idea that we don’t need it is absurd. Stealing someone’s work and selling as your own is fraud. Plain and simple.

        • Doomsider@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          First, how do you account for all the art made before copyright existed. Second, what about all the art created everyday where the creator does not pursue copyright let alone try to enforce their rights in a court of law. These two scenarios disprove your assertion that art needs copyright.

          Perhaps you are under the misconception that artists need to make a living. Art is an expression of our culture and it is not inherently tied to making money. How many people are creating art right now without the intention to sell it. I will clue you in, there is a lot of people, millions who do this everyday.

          The amount of art created for personal use dwarfs that of commercial use by a thousand fold. Copyright does not need to protect these artists at all. Read that, the majority of artists do not need or ever use copyright.

          All art is iterative. This means every piece of art is built upon the art that came before it. Copying is literally how it is done. You know Led Zeppelin just copied a bunch of old blues songs? Oh you didn’t because you think artists create stuff out of thin air apparently.

          Stealing is depriving someone of their property. Copying does not do this at all. You are pushing a false narrative to prop up your flawed argument. Plain and simple.

        • Soggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t see the predictable effects of dropping IP laws as more harmful than the current reality. The idea is to protect small creators but the implementation does the opposite.

          The solution, as is with so many societal issues, is UBI.

          • x4740N@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            A further solution than UBI is abolishing the exploitative system of capitalism, replacing it with post scarcity while implementing and maintaining true democracy where the people have actual power to vote on issues

            Human rights should be respected most of all and should be legally ratified to protect human rights and equality to the fullest extent

            Systems like sustainable energy and recycling can assist post scarcity, eliminating food wastage and finding new ways to recycle and use food bits that normally couldn’t be consumed

            New technologies and research into food production such as using vertical farms and aquaponics

            Humans should be working together towards a better future in all aspects of life, no one’s rights should be taken away in the name of equality either because then its not equality

            I only see universal basic income as a transitional step towards what I have described

            • Soggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Well sure, but “end the concept of Intellectual Property” is already a radical position to argue. Fully Automated Space Gay Communism is a little beyond the scope of the topic and a hard sell to normies.

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      My ideal copyright would be 15 years or death of the creator or the end of sale/support, whichever is earlier. That would mean that Portal 2 has copyright and Portal doesn’t, which sounds about right.

        • WolfLink
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          So Disney and Nintendo can keep doing what they are doing but also the same companies can steal the work of smaller artists almost immediately?

          No thanks.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            So Disney and Nintendo can keep doing what they are doing

            After 30 years not even Disney or Nintendo will pay a billion for exclusivity.

            but also the same companies can steal the work of smaller artists almost immediately?

            Let’s make copyright non-transferable. For a company to retain copyright it must employ the creator.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            To retain copyright:-

            $2^n for year n

            $1 for year 1

            $2 for year 2

            $4 for year 3

            $1k for year 10

            $32k for year 15

            $1m for year 20

            $1bn for year 30

            • Soggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              Why, though? It still pointlessly favors people who already have money. Just get rid of it.

                • Soggy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You are desperate to give rich fucks an avenue to maintain an advantage over everyone else.

                  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    No. I want to give small creators a tool to stop their work being stolen in the short term.

                    But I also want to force copyright monopolists to pay ever increasing tax on the property they hold that should really be in the public domain.

                    My proposal also means orphan works no longer exist.

          • angrystego@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You don’t pay a plumber every single time you use his work 15 yrs after his death.

        • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Like, maybe tiered to something like 5 years: pay what it costs now, 10 years: 10 times that cost, and 15 years: 100 times, with a hard cap at 15? I could get behind that.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yeah. Something like that. Maybe don’t even need a cap.

            If you pay $2^n each year n to retain copyright then by year 30 you are into the billions.

          • kryptonite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            5 years: pay what it costs now

            It doesn’t cost anything to copyright something. You just automatically own the copyright to something you create.

            (This may vary outside the US; I’m not familiar with international copyright law.)

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t, it’s not the 18th century and the industrial revolution. Copyright had a time and place and that isn’t the here and now. We are worse off for copyright and patients today. Today they enshrine wealth and are a tool to prevent progress and inflate cost.