Because it does far more harm than good. Enforcement of copyright requires all kinds of authoritarianism and infringement upon people's rights to use their own property/devices, which hardly seems a fair trade just for more entertainment media. Especially when there are enough creatives out there who do the work purely for passion that'd we'd never run out of media to consume even if nobody could use copyright to profit from it.
Copyright also applies on media that is not for entertainment or "consumption". Where would the money come from to pay for important news reporting, for example? There are a lot of people in this world who are not hackers and have other needs.
Sure, if we lived in a society that valued people enough intrinsically to support them regardless of their value in the capitalist marketplace... But we don't. Too bad people need to eat and pay their rent.
Lots of drugs cost little to manufacture but lots to develop. Ideally the costs for robust research and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals would be shared by all people equally because we all benefit from improving the human condition... But they're not. And since pharmaceutical companies can't just blow a whole bunch of money on research for things that will bring them no money, they charge enough for the pill to make their money back, and unfortunately, usually, far beyond that until it's able to be made generically. I believe that windfall profits from prices that keep people from treatment are wrong. But allowing everyone to make new drugs developed by other pharmaceutical companies to sell at generic prices would just mean those companies wouldn't research new drugs... Win? Not without a way in-place to replace that research. And anyone considering some glib argument questioning the value of new drugs, you're full of shit. Not every new drug is a Viagra knock-off.
Lots of people in the tech crowd have adopted this convenient romantic notion that real art must be non-commercial, and that all real art is made by people toiling in obscurity, driven solely by the need for self-expression and the distant hope that they'll someday be discovered, become famous, and have their name in art history books... Or even that hobby art could replace professional art. That, of course, is complete bullshit. Art is no different than any other intellectual pursuit and equating VFX artists for AAA game titles and professional session musicians to weekend basement studio oil painters and people with hobby bands is like equating immigration attorneys writing depositions and technical writers to people who are serious about their personal fanfic blogs.
Saying we need to abolish copyright means the things that are copyrighted have enough value to want; demanding we do that without first demanding an alternate way to support people who do intellectual work is a self-absorbed demand for free stuff. Saying they should get another job and continue to produce that valuable work for free— like a public slave in ancient Rome— is not an answer any ethical adult could entertain in good faith.
> Especially when there are enough creatives out there who do the work purely for passion that'd we'd never run out of media to consume even if nobody could use copyright to profit from it.
“Because I think people should work for free to entertain me”
IMO copyright should be drastically shortened, and should possibly have a mechanism for varying the length based on the application - for instance, aerospace software can take literal decades just to be permitted for use, so if the copyright only lasts 10 years then aerospace software basically isn't covered.
In contrast, perhaps the average videogame might need only five years of copyright to sufficiently incentivize their production. Hypothetically. In such a scenario, there's no one-size-fits-all solution, so we need a different system than just a flat copyright duration.
While I agree in theory, I'm afraid that disputes over what is sufficient in what industry would result in 10 years for one kind of work, 40 for another, and 5 for yet another. I would accept a one-size-fits-all solution in the form of a lowest-common-denominator which simultaneously is much closer to the original US copyright term. Surely 15 years of monopoly privileges after publishing - or 20 years after writing/making, whichever is sooner - is sufficient. (No extensions, although I might accept something like Bill Willingham's proposal of giving licensees 10 years total and max [1].) If that's not enough incentive then the prospective author isn't confident that the work would sell well in the best conditions, and a government should not further distort a market to make an at-best-poorly-selling product sell well.
Because it's not private property. When something is a private property, that means that if I have 100% of it, you have 0% of it. That doesn't happen with, for example, songs. I can have 100% of a song and listen to it as much as I want and that doesn't mean you can't have and listen that song as well.
Copyright (and patents) are a limited monopoly granted by the state, thus they are inherently immoral, as everything that any government does, as they do that by the use of force.
Other way to look at it is that ideas are not scarce at all and it's copyright/patents/the government that creates scarcity where there's abundance.
We only have it to promote useful arts and science. With more books than you can read in a lifetime is copyright necessary? Is it the most useful way to ensure more art is created considering the cost?
logicchains|2 years ago
carlosjobim|2 years ago
chefandy|2 years ago
Lots of drugs cost little to manufacture but lots to develop. Ideally the costs for robust research and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals would be shared by all people equally because we all benefit from improving the human condition... But they're not. And since pharmaceutical companies can't just blow a whole bunch of money on research for things that will bring them no money, they charge enough for the pill to make their money back, and unfortunately, usually, far beyond that until it's able to be made generically. I believe that windfall profits from prices that keep people from treatment are wrong. But allowing everyone to make new drugs developed by other pharmaceutical companies to sell at generic prices would just mean those companies wouldn't research new drugs... Win? Not without a way in-place to replace that research. And anyone considering some glib argument questioning the value of new drugs, you're full of shit. Not every new drug is a Viagra knock-off.
Lots of people in the tech crowd have adopted this convenient romantic notion that real art must be non-commercial, and that all real art is made by people toiling in obscurity, driven solely by the need for self-expression and the distant hope that they'll someday be discovered, become famous, and have their name in art history books... Or even that hobby art could replace professional art. That, of course, is complete bullshit. Art is no different than any other intellectual pursuit and equating VFX artists for AAA game titles and professional session musicians to weekend basement studio oil painters and people with hobby bands is like equating immigration attorneys writing depositions and technical writers to people who are serious about their personal fanfic blogs.
Saying we need to abolish copyright means the things that are copyrighted have enough value to want; demanding we do that without first demanding an alternate way to support people who do intellectual work is a self-absorbed demand for free stuff. Saying they should get another job and continue to produce that valuable work for free— like a public slave in ancient Rome— is not an answer any ethical adult could entertain in good faith.
renzobanks|2 years ago
Aurornis|2 years ago
“Because I think people should work for free to entertain me”
Qwertious|2 years ago
In contrast, perhaps the average videogame might need only five years of copyright to sufficiently incentivize their production. Hypothetically. In such a scenario, there's no one-size-fits-all solution, so we need a different system than just a flat copyright duration.
hn_acker|2 years ago
[1] https://billwillingham.substack.com/p/willingham-sends-fable...
Findeton|2 years ago
Copyright (and patents) are a limited monopoly granted by the state, thus they are inherently immoral, as everything that any government does, as they do that by the use of force.
Other way to look at it is that ideas are not scarce at all and it's copyright/patents/the government that creates scarcity where there's abundance.
tomjen3|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]