• Sybil
    link
    English
    -1911 months ago

    you can still sell your book

    you can still sell your song.

    but your song can be a remix. your book can be a retelling of a popular story.

    you can still make money. you just can’t stop other people from making money. that is all copyright does, and it is wrong. it destroys culture.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2711 months ago

      I don’t think you understand how copyrights work. If they are abolished, everybody is free to redistribute your creation without compensation or even acknowledgement. The moment you put it out there, it’s instantly public domain.

      That means we’d have no more professionally produced movies, series, books, songs, games, etc., but would be stuck with what’s essentially fan art.

      Sure, there are talented artists out there who produce music as a hobby, youtubers who make great videos and such, but it would be the end of commercial productions.

      • Sybil
        link
        English
        -1811 months ago

        That means we’d have no more professionally produced movies, series, books, songs, games, etc., but would be stuck with what’s essentially fan art.

        we had professionally produced songs and books and games and plays before copyright. you are making that up.

      • Sybil
        link
        English
        -2111 months ago

        I don’t think you understand how copyrights work

        • Ook the Librarian
          link
          English
          711 months ago

          They are idealizing a pay-the-creator system. They are arguing for a system that is kinda coming together with patreon-like stuff.

          You seem to be arguing that people will just buy the cheapest identical copy. Which is hard to argue against, but there are people out there that pay creators that give their work for free. Copyright law certainly protects creators. But it’s cool to see some creators monetizing on open-licensed work.

          • Sybil
            link
            English
            111 months ago

            I think you replied to the wrong comment

            • Ook the Librarian
              link
              English
              211 months ago

              Yeah, kinda. I forgot which side of the argument the reply I replied to was on. I guess you can just flip the "you"s and "they"s. Or am I still off-base?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        011 months ago

        Relatively simple actually, without copyright. Download Spotify, rename app to Spudify, re-upload to app store. Done, easy peasy. Hardest part about it would be decompiling the existing app, which is definitely possible and may not even be necessary.

        The real truth is, however, that in this hypothetical world there would be no Spotify to copy and there would be much, much less music available to stream on Spudify.

        • @Dkarma
          link
          English
          -111 months ago

          Yeah cuz musicians and artists only ever do it for the money…no other reason ever, nope.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            511 months ago

            If they can’t afford to do it, then you’re relegating creativity to only those wealthy enough to be able to afford to do it.

            The vast majority of art throughout human history was paid for by somebody, or sold by the artist. Van Gogh dies a poor man because people didn’t want to buy his paintings when he was alive. The Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a Pope. Just because you think your have an intrinsic right to the work of somebody else doesn’t mean you do.

            • @Dkarma
              link
              English
              -111 months ago

              Your first sentence is simply not true.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                311 months ago

                It absolutely is true. If people can’t afford the time to create, what you’ll see is a hyper-accelerated version of the fine art world, with AI art for the masses, and human-made art for the wealthy either by commission or by those wealthy enough to spend the time learning to create their own, never to be seen by anyone else. And since AI work is a derivative of the work in its data set, it will degrade in quality over time as those data sets become filled with AI generated work. We’re already seeing this with stuff like ChatGPT.

                It’s only been in the past 50-100 years that your average person has been able to buy art. Before then, art was relegated to the wealthy. Artists had patrons, people with more money than sense who were willing to pay the artist enough that they could spend their time making art instead of working, or they made commissioned pieces for the wealthy: private art for their homes, public statues and pieces for temples venerating the person who had it commissioned, stuff like that.

      • Sybil
        link
        English
        -1711 months ago

        without copyright standing in your way, it is a cinch.