Technology

59589 readers

2891 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

279

Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it (walledculture.org)

submitted 4 months ago by psychothumbs@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

No, it would empower anybody, especially corporations, to take the new artists' ideas and work and repackage them as an item for sale to others. Anything you share would not be covered by copyright and therefor no longer be your property.

Individuals cannot compete with organizations.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you are already sharing something for free in order to gain publicity, what is the downside of others repackaging them and spreading them further? That is exactly the kind of publicity you're trying to gain.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But you're not profiting off of it. The corporation is. They have no incentive to give you credit, every incentive to claim that they made it which they would of course be allowed to do. They could even start making their own derivative pieces or continuations. The artist has gained nothing from this hypothetical.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Eliminating copyright doesn't mean they'd be allowed to lie about who wrote what they were publishing. Anything an artist creates blowing up and gaining wide appreciation is very good for that artist's future prospects. An artist who is spreading their work for free anyway is much better off in the scenario where there's no copyright and everyone understands the need to tip / patronize their favorite artists.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Eliminating copyright doesn’t mean they’d be allowed to lie about who wrote what they were publishing.

That is literally what Copyright is. Removing it means exactly that.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

No copyright is about the "right" to "copy" the work in question, not the attribution. Works that are in the public domain still list the author.