You need some amount of copy protection so that people/companies with large platforms can't immediately rip off independent authors and sell their work before the author's version can get any word of mouth. (Where "sell" probably means "distribute with ads" since there's no copy protection.)
4-5 years of copy protection would prevent this, and that's on the very safe end.
No it shouldn’t, because labor is scarce.
Why have authors? Or poets? Or scientists? Or SWEs? we don't work for free. Or would you prefer to drive the aforementioned out of business.
Because someone needs something written, and they hire you to do it. Or because you want to write, and then others discover that they like what you write, and they want to help you write more. None of this requires copyright, and in fact copyright make some works illegal to author, therefore it restricts authorship.
> Or poets?
As above.
> Or scientists?
Someone needs research done. Someone wants to do research. Someone wants to fund research. None of this requires copyright.
> Or SWEs?
"Hey I need this software, can you write it for me? Here's how much I'm willing to pay for it."
Copyright has never been relevant in my career as a software developer. If anything, developers giving up their exclusive rights via free software licenses has been a massive boost for the entire field and everyone is building products atop someone else's work. That's a good thing!
I only with copyright didn't restrict our field so much.
> we don't work for free.
Indeed, someone needs my labor and they pay for it. Pretty simple.
> Or would you prefer to drive the aforementioned out of business.
Strawman. GP argued against particular business models that are reliant on copyright. That's not an argument against these entire fields, and indeed most of them would continue to exist without copyright.
But yes; I'm ok with letting people with poor business models go out of business.
Abandoning copyright would enable other business models that are currently difficult or impossible to conduct legally. I think the status quo is bad, because there are many services I can think of that would benefit end users (and which I would pay for) but which are not going to happen because of copyright.
How many authors have you hired recently? Should I go hire an author next time I want to read a book, and pay him/her a living wage for the 1000 hours or so it takes to write a good novel? Hire a trope of actors, director, SFX team next time I want to watch a movie? If I am unsatisfied with the waterproofness of my jacket I am supposed to contract GORE to provision scientists and a lab to research a better membrane? I'm sorry but this isn't passing the sniff test - none of those activities scale without IP protection.
>Strawman. GP argued against particular business models that are reliant on copyright. That's not an argument against these entire fields, and indeed most of them would continue to exist without copyright.
Your assertion that I am making a strawman is silly. Those fields rely in their entirety on IP protection - books, science, engineering. Pagerank becomes open source and what is google.com? Just a commodity - never would have got off the ground. Those fields exist[0] because of defensible IP.
> Someone wants to fund research
No one wants to fund research, people want to sell the things research brings.
>Indeed, someone needs my labor and they pay for it. Pretty simple.
No one needs my labor (or yours) if they can't sell the output (unless you wait tables or lay bricks). How does one sell intellectual output without IP protection? Patreon is not a valid answer.
[0]At any level that can be described more intensive than 'hobby'. And I don't know about you, but I'd like there to be a way for the the people working on vaccines to be working on vaccines as their day job. To say nothing of media I've enjoyed consuming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t...
It all by law is public domain, i.e. copyright free (+legalese).
I am talking about IP-protections more generally than 'copywrite' alone per parent's discussion. Moving copywrite more in line with patents would be a sensible change.
(This message brought to you by Nit-Pickers 'Я' Us.)
Intellectual property isn't a scarce resource. I look forward to the day we all exploit that. We'll find new business models, ones that take advantage of being able to build on all proir human knowledge, and we'll all be more productive because of it.