What a weird thing to rail against. I'm certainly unconvinced the world would be magically better without people organizing to produce content.
Maybe there's some issues with copyrights, but as far as I can tell, almost any organization would attempt to preserve profits. We, as a people, then go through and create legislation which curbs rampant abuses whether that's environmental pollution, or unsafe kids' toys, or overly lengthy copyright claims.
But the idea people can't get together and make movies, that's a new one.
Often at the expense of everything else, including common sense. Despite their current revenues already covering their expenses, many times over.
> But the idea people can't get together and make movies, that's a new one.
They can, but they will own shares in them, either split equally or proportionally to their contribution.
My idea here is that you would have the option of either paying right now, or waiting when the copyright expires and getting it legally for free. In our current system people don't even consider that copyrights have an expiry date, they operate as if they're effectively indefinite. And the current system doesn't work anyway — the majority of the society just isn't having it. Everyone has pirated something at some point.
Covid has been nearly 2 years, and for many of us it feels both like yesterday and also like forever ago, for example.
And then you'll have people that want to watch the movie of something, so they're willing to pay the video company for instant access, but the movie is based off a script someone wrote, or a book someone wrote, and that book is at least 2 years old.
RR Martin would make zero dollars from Game of Thrones, for example.
> RR Martin would make zero dollars from Game of Thrones, for example.
whats the long tail look like for popular books?
my impression was, most books that make any money are hugely popular for a short time, then basically fall off a "sales cliff"... i wonder if anyones done any comprehensive stories about this subject.
The minute you want to express yourself to others, you're no longer in it for self-expression.
And regardless of your opinion on what should and should not exist, people should be fairly compensated for their endeavors, even if those endeavors are to create leisure activities for others.
Copyright is an attempt to enable creators to get compensation for their work. This is one thing the people who rail about the ease of reproduction miss. It was never about the difficulty of reproduction, it was always about the difficulty of creation.
How do we reward that when we are allowed to freely copy their efforts without the need to consider their contribution? It's one of the few things I like about a subscription or Patreon model. We're paying directly for the effort of creation.
But now, it is dead simple to propagate someone's work once they've finished the act of creation.
And this isn't a discussion if others are getting their fair due. Even if they are not, it does not mean we should shaft everyone. Everyone should be fairly compensated for their work. But not enforcing some level of protection for the creation of art is pretty much ensuring no one is compensated for their work. Fairly or not.
> That includes other creative occupations and most of the employees of e.g. movie studios. Are we fairly compensating _them_ for their work?
afaik i didn't sign any copyright assignment in my work contract...
i wonder what the legal basis is for that?
> And the point is exactly that, instead of protecting creative output copyright is locking it down by capitalising it. Rather than creativity being a flow of meaningful communication and exchange at the level of ideas and aesthetics, it’s becoming a stock with ongoing financial and not creative dividends.
sounds super cool if it could work... all the stuff i made, when reused somewhere by a company, i get a residual... the more valuable, the more used, and the more i get... that could be pretty awesome (hypothetically)