[loupol]

Agreed on all points, the tweet feels like an allergic reaction to what copyright has morphed into, which is a tool for big corporations to extract money from existing IP for an insanely long duration.

But it's important to remember that no copyright at all would hurt small and medium creators immensely. Big corps could just pick things that are trending up, rip them off instantly and scale their ripoff much better thanks to their great workforce and marketing reach. That would create a big disincentive for independent creation of IP.

Like you, I would just prefer if copyright was kept in place but its duration decreased drastically compared to now. It doesn't seem likely given the lobbying strength of the corporations that benefit from the current situation sadly.

[naasking]

> But it's important to remember that no copyright at all would hurt small and medium creators immensely. Big corps could just pick things that are trending up, rip them off instantly and scale their ripoff much better thanks to their great workforce and marketing reach

The big assumption in this argument is that large corporations that depend on copyright would still exist, but it seems pretty clear that they would not. If copyright didn't exist, then there would be nothing for them to monetize. The first broadcast, distribution or performance of a work could recorded/copied and redistributed with no penalty, so large corporations are just as disadvantaged as small players. How do you see large corporations forming and perpetuating themselves in order to exploit these smaller players?

[snowwrestler]

Large-scale distribution is expensive and complicated. Companies don’t need to control copyright to make money doing it. In fact digital distribution companies make way more money today than copyright holders. Look how much Google, Apple, Amazon, etc are worth, compared to the labels. Spotify alone has more annual revenue than all the big music labels combined. Copyright is the legal lever that allows labels and artists to make a claim on some of that distribution revenue.

This is in fact the origin of the legal concept of copyright: established printers who had more money and equipment than authors would print up copies of popular written works, distribute and sell them, and return nothing to the author.

[sensanaty]

Maybe if we lived in a world that never had copyright law to begin with, but we don't. We live in a world where trillion dollar entities like Microsoft & Disney exist. Even if you abolished the concept of Copyright, Patents and all the rest of it now at this very moment, these companies would still have trillions in their coffers with which they could do plenty of harm to smaller entities. You think Microsoft, who already have a habit of harvesting as many things as they can en-masse, isn't gonna be able to do anything to harm the smaller players? You think Disney isn't just gonna go out and straight up hoover up every single byte of music & video in existence that they can get their hands on and start reselling it?

> ...then there would be nothing for them to monetize...

... other than the works of every single person they could possibly get their hands on, as is happening with the AI companies.

[Centigonal]

H&M, Shein, etc are not IP-based organizations - their value comes from their massive and highly efficient production, supplychain, and distribution networks. They steal or dupe many of their designs, usually from smaller creators, designers, and boutiques. A no copyright environment would benefit businesses like this.

[beej71]

Is the argument here that without copyright the works would be effectively worthless, so the corporations couldn't make money off them?

[sharperguy]

As a consumer why would I pay spotify $15 a month for ripped off content that doesn't even go to the artist, when I can just paypal my favourite artists $5 now and again, giving them infinitely more revenue from me than spotify does even now, while I torrent/share/sample/remix/cover their entire collection?

[sojuz151]

For convince? There is a single app with all the music, recommendations, and everything. Also, Spotify would be far cheaper. Most people would just use the app with the biggest catalogue, and not a single dime would go to the artists.

[johnnyanmac]

>why would I pay spotify $15 a month for ripped off content that doesn't even go to the artist

because if you listen to more than 3 artists, the ripoffs are cheaper. And as is, Spotify has original music but barely pays the artist.

Sad fact is that very few people care about who is behind the art they consume. Maybe they care about celebrity gossip, but that's it.

>while I torrent/share/sample/remix/cover their entire collection?

under this theoretical system, the 90-9-1 rule applies. Very few people will bother producing their own music, so the worries of pirating is way bigger than non-corporations remixing/covering

[chrismcb]

You can do that... But it isn't easy, for you nor for the artist.

[myaccountonhn]

That’s what they already do today. OpenAI is an obvious example in our industry but another one is where companies steal clothing designs from indigenous communities all over America. These people can not really defend or assert themselves in US copyright system, so US companies just engage in full on resource extraction without any compensation.

[sveitly]

New or traditional stuff? Copyright shouldn't be how you defend your traditional stuff. It's more something for the Protected Designation of Origin / PDO

[chrismcb]

Clothing design is difficult to copyright. I'm pretty sure just about anyone can defend themselves in the US copyright system. Sure it becomes difficult when you are a small fry (whether indigenous or not) against a big fish, but it can be done.

[soerxpso]

> But it's important to remember that no copyright at all would hurt small and medium creators immensely.

This doesn't refute the tweet. You're just saying you want a monetization strategy that enables an information business model that you like (small/medium creators) instead of one that you don't like. It's still not a moral right, and your belief that the law should help artists is not innately superior to a belief that the law should help Disney or that the law should help corn farmers.

Additionally, it's arguable that copyright is needed for small/medium creators to succeed. Most successful independent creators monetize through patreon or personal commissions, neither of which are actually hindered by lack of copyright.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

nowhere in that commenters post did they mention preference, they made an observation. You're the one trying to apply feelings to it.

[grungydan]

>Big corps could just pick things that are trending up, rip them off instantly and scale their ripoff much better thanks to their great workforce and marketing reach.

Except that they are already doing this, and since money == "justice" in this country and most of the rest of the world, their big bag of money means that you have zero realistic chance in winning any attempt at suing them for doing so.

Copyright is a great conversation to have, but it's a bit like sitting around talking about how to best dry off a plate in the Titanic dining room.

[LocalH]

The DMCA has also been abused far past its original intentions. It was basically originally intended to stop people copying DVDs. Now it's used to protect these asinine little "digital locks" inside of everything that prevents independent repair by pairing parts using cryptographic exchanges.

[fsflover]

> But it's important to remember that no copyright at all would hurt small and medium creators immensely.

This is false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15309950

[chrismcb]

Piracy isn't what the OP is talking about (at least I don't think they are) what they mean is a bigger business will come and steal the small/medium content. Since they are bigger they can do a better job of selling the content than the small/medium person.

[dventimi]

Hang on. How would there even be big corporations to hurt small and medium-sized creators, without copyright?

[User23]

Trade secrets can exist without any supporting legislation.

[Brian_K_White]

Corporations get everyone to do things they don't have to against their own interests all the time.

All day every day every industry every level.

"How?" is infinite different ways not any particular one.

Usually it's down to something being 0.001% prettier or more convenient or even a totally fabricated impression that everyone else does it (which then becomes true but is only true after the idea was used).

They sucessfully harness the desire for conformity in some people and also the desire for non-conformity in other people, at the same time for the same products.

They completely effectively harness countless well studied aspects of human nature.

If you're like me, sitting here writing about how cynical and manipulative they all are, they have angles that work on that too.

[FrustratedMonky]

It is currently so pro-big business, I would not be surprised if a modern 'free' market economy Republican, would think the original arguments to create copywrite, sound socialist.

[Mountain_Skies]

You'll never win against Big Business while you're still stuck in the half century obsolete paradigm of the Democrats not being a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business Inc just like that Republicans are.

[posix86]

Not just small, also big companies. Why spent billions of dollars researching a new technology when, as soon as you figure it out, someone else copies it for a millionth of the cost? The dominant strategy will be just to wait for others, which might slow progress a lot.

[thereddaikon]

You're thinking of patents which are similar but concern technical inventions whereas copyright is for creative works. And then you have trademarks which are for business branding. They are all government enforced monopolies on ideas but different kinds of ideas, each with limitations and with the intent to facilitate economic activity. Reforming copyright shouldn't have an effect on patent law.

[LtWorf]

Copyright and patents aren't the same at all.