Post #4217664

2026-07-29 22:34 UTC

I do own my copyrighted material. You own a copy. You can’t redistribute it (without my permission), because I own the copyright. So you have a right over my copy, and you can decide what I do with it. That’s what I said. You are the sole person to have the right to produce copies. There’s a word for that, it’s a monopoly. And since your material can, materially, be copied, copyright only exists as enforced by the state. It’s a state enforced private monopoly. And so are patents. And these didn’t exist until the states introduced them. This is pretty factual. We cannot agree. It’s not gotten out of hand. So you think that at automatic, untraceable term of 90 years if perfectly reasonable? You think that the ability by large corporations of amassing and gatekeeping (no derivative work without their permission) 100 years of human culture is just fine? The ability to keep under control works that they are not even distributing, which then means that these can’t even be read, listened or watched… This is all fine? You like how the US patent systems grants a patent without any real examination for basically anything that written in English, no matter how ridiculous? You love the endless cultural slop milking the same damn IPs for nostalgia? It pleases you that every artist who records a version of “my favourite things” (or any other jazz standards) ends up giving 90% of the proceeds to the heirs of the same two dead white dudes? Or how sampling basically destroys the revenue potential of a new song because the author of the sample is going to eat up the work of new artists? You think your viral video wouldn’t have been adequately protected with, say, a 30 year term? You think 5 years in jail for a private copy of a blue ray is good and proportional? Because it does violate our copyrights. Apparently it often doesn’t. Courts have already ruled on this. When the billionaires do it, it’s fair use.

Replies (1)

@hperrin@lemmy.ca 2026-07-29 23:28

So you have a right over my copy, and you can decide what I do with it. That’s what I said. You are the sole person to have the right to produce copies. There’s a word for that, it’s a monopoly. To the extent that I can prevent you from distributing copies of it to other people, yes. And since your material can, materially, be copied, copyright only exists as enforced by the state. It’s a state enforced private monopoly. And so are patents. Sure. You say that like it’s a bad thing, but that’s why inventors can do what they do and survive. I’m an inventor. If I didn’t have my patent, Google could just come and take my idea, build their own version, and undercut me. Isn’t that a worse monopoly? And these didn’t exist until the states introduced them. This is pretty factual. Correct. The states invented them because of a problem. They fix the problem. Copyrights and patents give power to the little guy to prevent big companies from stealing their intellectual property. I don’t really care what you do with my code, but if Google starts selling my code and my patented product, you can bet I’m going to sue them. So you think that at automatic, untraceable term of 90 years if perfectly reasonable? I’m not sure what “untraceable” in this context means, but yes, I should be able to profit off of my works for my entire life. You think that the ability by large corporations of amassing and gatekeeping (no derivative work without their permission) 100 years of human culture is just fine? The ability to keep under control works that they are not even distributing, which then means that these can’t even be read, listened or watched… This is all fine? Like I said, the law can be abused. If the alternative is that the creators of these pieces of culture don’t see a dime, then yes, this system is absolutely better. You like how the US patent systems grants a patent without any real examination for basically anything that written in English, no matter how ridiculous? You’ve clearly never been through the patent process. They went over my patent with a fine toothed comb. I went through three rounds of revision and had to take an entire section of claims out. You love the endless cultural slop milking the same damn IPs for nostalgia? Just because you don’t like Disney doesn’t mean that copyright laws are broken. Yeah, Disney kinda sucks lately. So what? Come up with your own ideas and make something worth watching, like tons of independent creators have recently. I just finished The Amazing Digital Circus. What an awesome example of creativity. I’m very happy that Disney can’t just copy it. It pleases you that every artist who records a version of “my favourite things” (or any other jazz standards) ends up giving 90% of the proceeds to the heirs of the same two dead white dudes? Or how sampling basically destroys the revenue potential of a new song because the author of the sample is going to eat up the work of new artists? If you don’t like giving to the creators whose work you are building on, just come up with your own ideas. Tons of artists use their own original content. You think your viral video wouldn’t have been adequately protected with, say, a 30 year term? You think 5 years in jail for a private copy of a blue ray is good and proportional? No. I would like to own that video for my entire life. I created it. It wouldn’t exist without me. If someone wants to use it, they can license it from me. Apparently it often doesn’t. Courts have already ruled on this. When the billionaires do it, it’s fair use. And that’s the problem. Our IP laws are not strong enough.

Open ##4217663