|
Top-level
 @PirateRoberts @internetarchive @team I'd be inclined to say that the basis #copyright uses to justify its existence is fundamentally flawed and that it has no place existing. Unfortunately I don't have a good transcript handy, but this youtuber's two-video series makes for fairly good general idea: https://www.youtube.com/@Patricia_Taxxon/search?query=The%20Golden%20Calf 3 comments
@PirateRoberts Why is it good or necessary? Remuneration of creation or funding of the arts can be done by other ways that do not imply to mind control and limit those exposed to your arts & creations, nor nonsensically apply ownership to ideas. By that I'm referring to everything being derivative art. Because yes, humans get inspired by what they know and remix it, that's a thing. Copyright turns all art into cognitohazards for as long as it is active over a given work. @PirateRoberts As for that complete control? No, the only way to have such complete control is to simply never publish nor share your at. Which well, feel free to do so I guess? I can perfectly well imagine someone writing or painting solely for their own satisfaction with no intent to share the result. That part on remuneration by the way was in the second Golden Calf video. |
Gregory's Server
@lispi314 @internetarchive @team Copyright should not be abolished. Copyright is a good and necessary thing, it just needs to go back to a flat 28 years. If copyright didn’t exist, the creator would have complete control of works, which is why copyright was created.