Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Duncan's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
kirch

@duncanlock I never understood the desire to hide media & make it rare combined with the simultaneous desire to create media for mass consumption. Like it's too good to even be seen? Only the right sort of people are allowed to consume this content? Preposterous.

21 Nov 2024 at 1:00 | Wall-to-wall | Open on tilde.zone
15 comments
Carolyn

@kirch @duncanlock Creators and artists should have the right to decide what happens to their creations. "Consume" and "content" are problematic descriptions of people's work.

21 Nov 2024 at 7:18 | Open on mastodon.social
GeofCox

@CStamp

Hmmm... I suspect the idea that artists should have unlimited rights to decide what happens to their creations is equally problematic, especially in these days when such 'rights' can be bought and sold - for example to corporate entities that never die. Are we going to privatise everything forever, and have no commons left for us all to play in?

@kirch @duncanlock

21 Nov 2024 at 7:58 | Open on climatejustice.social
Carolyn

@GeofCox I'm talking about the actual creators. Once they sell their rights, different rules, but others deciding they want to profit from someone else's work is as bad as this AI crap. No one should have to worry about showing their work because assholes will then think it's fair game. @kirch @duncanlock

21 Nov 2024 at 8:01 | Open on mastodon.social
GeofCox

@CStamp

Even if artists were not allowed to sell their rights, however, I'm still not sure about them having unlimited or indefinite rights, particularly if there's no profit motive involved.

I see all this more in terms of society coming to a sensible compromise that acknowledges the artist's work, and perhaps to a share of profits for a time from derivative works, but also acknowledges the social nature of all art, that it builds on previous works and traditions, and that allowing experiment and creativity in the public domain is good for everyone.

@kirch @duncanlock

@CStamp

Even if artists were not allowed to sell their rights, however, I'm still not sure about them having unlimited or indefinite rights, particularly if there's no profit motive involved.

I see all this more in terms of society coming to a sensible compromise that acknowledges the artist's work, and perhaps to a share of profits for a time from derivative works, but also acknowledges the social nature of all art, that it builds on previous works and traditions, and that allowing experiment and...

21 Nov 2024 at 8:27 | Open on climatejustice.social
kirch

@GeofCox @CStamp @duncanlock lots of people submit their works directly into public domain, or a similar sharing license. Thomas Jefferson setup the basis of the current copyright/patent regime - at first with 7 years to recoup the costs of creation, bumped up to 14 years, before a work enters the public domain - Jefferson also said “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” and that "these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society" ... The idea that an authors great-great grandchildren should exclusively profit from somebody else's work is antisocial, we are all citizens of the world.

(Jefferson quotes pulled from this letter: press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founde )

@GeofCox @CStamp @duncanlock lots of people submit their works directly into public domain, or a similar sharing license. Thomas Jefferson setup the basis of the current copyright/patent regime - at first with 7 years to recoup the costs of creation, bumped up to 14 years, before a work enters the public domain - Jefferson also said “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” and that...

21 Nov 2024 at 14:16 | Open on tilde.zone
GeofCox

@CStamp @kirch @duncanlock

One of my bugbears is those notices on videos, etc, saying 'copyright infringement is theft'. But copyright infringement is NOT theft, is it?. There is no moral equivalence between copying and theft.

If I take your loaf of bread, or your book, or your CD, you don't have it any more. That's theft. If I merely borrow your CD – even if I copy it before giving it back - that's nothing like theft. Indeed it is a kind of sharing most people are very happy to engage in. It's a very natural and welcome aspect of human social life. People have always shared books and records in this way. Nor is this kind of sharing anything to to do with plagiarism (which is clearly against natural justice) – nobody is pretending they are the author of the shared work.

@CStamp @kirch @duncanlock

One of my bugbears is those notices on videos, etc, saying 'copyright infringement is theft'. But copyright infringement is NOT theft, is it?. There is no moral equivalence between copying and theft.

If I take your loaf of bread, or your book, or your CD, you don't have it any more. That's theft. If I merely borrow your CD – even if I copy it before giving it back - that's nothing like theft. Indeed it is a kind of sharing most people are very happy to engage in. It's a...

21 Nov 2024 at 8:03 | Open on climatejustice.social
Carolyn

@GeofCox @kirch @duncanlock It IS theft if you are copying it and distributing it without permission.

21 Nov 2024 at 8:10 | Open on mastodon.social
Björn Lindström

@CStamp @GeofCox @kirch @duncanlock no, and someone just explained why.

It's also not the same thing legally, copyright infringement and theft are completely different crimes.

21 Nov 2024 at 10:04 | Open on social.sdfeu.org
Epistatacadam

@GeofCox @CStamp @kirch @duncanlock I personally think that the concept that a corporate body is a person in law is a good example of the law being an ass. They are recognised as somehow different by taxation authorities hence corporation tax etc.
So why not in all civil law, and perhaps only living people should have the right to hold copyright, etc. and perhaps patients...?

21 Nov 2024 at 9:25 | Open on toot.wales
Madeleine Morris

@CStamp @kirch @duncanlock
While that sounds profoundly sensible, it doesn't take into account that every creator has to borrow from the culture that surrounds them and from what has been created before to create something 'new'.

Ugh... it's complicated.

21 Nov 2024 at 8:10 | Open on mstdn.social
Carolyn

@Remittancegirl @kirch @duncanlock It's not nearly as complicated as some want to make it.

21 Nov 2024 at 8:12 | Open on mastodon.social
Madeleine Morris

@CStamp @kirch @duncanlock

No, I think a lot of creators simply don't want to recognize the debt they owe to the mass of cultural production that has influenced them and made their own work possible.

And I do recognize the moral rights that creators want to claim. It feels like one's baby, and one doesn't want it used it ways that reflect poorly on the author, or do the creator out of a living.

But it IS complicated.

21 Nov 2024 at 8:16 | Open on mstdn.social
kirch

@CStamp @duncanlock most of that "content" crumbles to dust in a few years unless it's diligently copied and curated... Like, we keep finding "lost works" copied or erased and copied over in libraries of rare works, but now entire websites of work are lost unless one nonprofit or some random nerd saves them... The whole "content" thing we live in now comes from the Tech Sector, where they just build the platforms and it's up to somebody else to fill them, it doesn't matter to the machine what the content is, all the machine knows is it's moving and storing numbers; the human factor is where meaning and values come into play, but we're slaves to other near-mechanical systems and bureaucracies that enforce certain standards on our meaning & values for better or worse

@CStamp @duncanlock most of that "content" crumbles to dust in a few years unless it's diligently copied and curated... Like, we keep finding "lost works" copied or erased and copied over in libraries of rare works, but now entire websites of work are lost unless one nonprofit or some random nerd saves them... The whole "content" thing we live in now comes from the Tech Sector, where they just build the platforms and it's up to somebody else to fill them, it doesn't matter to the machine what the...

21 Nov 2024 at 16:08 | Open on tilde.zone
Matija Nalis

@CStamp
"Creators and artists should have the right to decide what happens to their creations" - I (as a creator) do not subscribe to such propaganda.

Should a "shoemaker have a right to decide what happens with their creations"? Like, limit you from wearing those shoes on weekends, or giving it to your sibling, or charging you (after the sale!!) for amount of steps taken in those shoes? Yet, that is exactly what #copyright does today (and not even to Creator's benefit!)
@kirch @duncanlock

25 Nov 2024 at 13:02 | Open on mastodon.online
Go Up