I don't agree with that video, and I'm sure that a good chunk of talented creators wouldn't appreciate losing control of their own works. Copyright needs to be rewritten, but abolished is quite a huge overcorrection

[–] gjghkk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Make your own works and have it your own name on it. But everybody can copy from eachother.

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I already understand the point of the video. I'm saying that the point of the video doesn't reflect the wishes and wills of all artists. If someone pours their heart and soul into something, they should have reasonable control over how that something is used by other people. The last thing we want is to demotivate those artists from making great works.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

"Reasonable control" is only possible in the legal sense, not the real sense, so I doubt artists care about it, outside of monetisation, which is what we're attempting to replace.

Right now as we are speaking, the art of thousands upon thousands of those creators is being stolen constantly by legally gray AI scraping by huge companies, or illegally by smaller merch leeches.

The internet makes data protection impossible.

The law, only prevents the most egregious kinds of 'monetisation with someone else's art', and is unable to stop the rest, for practical reasons.

If artists didn't have to worry about being compensated enough... Would they still want to have "reasonable control"? Would we still "risk" them being "demotivated", from being unable to forbid others specifically from making money with their ideas?

I think the human drive to create isn't that neurotic. I think this kind of "demotivation" only happens for the kind of human who has been abused for years by the rules of the absurd economy we live in. And that's what we're saying should change.

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Reasonable control in the legal sense does matter though. Right now, a majority of creatives don't own their IP in the legal sense, and they can't stop large companies from milking their works dry as a result. In the absence of IP laws, creatives would be able to create their works, but they'd also be competing against companies that have the resources to monetize, influence the general public, and kill the franchise through poor choices.

It's really important to know that the vast majority of people aren't going to have the goodwill to tip or otherwise support free works, and it's even less likely if a large company does enough marketing to overshadow an artist.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago

I'm getting the sense that you didn't actually watch the whole video, because your only two points in this comment,

In the absence of IP laws, creatives would be able to create their works, but they'd also be competing against companies that have the resources to monetize, influence the general public, and kill the franchise through poor choices.

And

It's really important to know that the vast majority of people aren't going to have the goodwill to tip or otherwise support free works, and it's even less likely if a large company does enough marketing to overshadow an artist.

, are answered during the video, and I don't see you arguing the points made by him, you're just straight up stating the opposite.

And your first point,

Right now, a majority of creatives don't own their IP in the legal sense, and they can't stop large companies from milking their works dry as a result.

, is about how the current system doesn't work to protect actual artists, yet does work to protect large IP-pimping companies.

load more comments (1 replies)