• Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.

    You are correct, copyright is ownership, not income. I own the copyright for all my work (but not work for hire) and what I do with it is my discretion.

    What is income, is the content I sell for the price acceptable to the buyer. Copyright (as originally conceived) is my protection so someone doesn’t take my work and use it to undermine my skillset. One of the reasons why penalties for copyright infringement don’t need actual damages and why Facebook (and other AI companies) are starting to sweat bullets and hire lawyers.

    That said, as a creative who relied on artistic income and pays other creatives appropriately, modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul. Gatekeeping was never the intent of early copyright and can fuck right off; if I paid for it, they don’t get to say no.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul.

      https://rufuspollock.com/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf

      This research paper from Rufus Pollock in 2009 suggests that the optimal timeframe for copyright is 15 years. I’ve been referencing this for, well, 16 years now, a year longer than the optimum copyright range. If I recall correctly I first saw this referenced by Mike Masnick of techdirt.

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        By gatekeeping I mean the use of digital methods to verify or restrict use of purchased copyright material after a sale such as Digital rights management, encryption such as CSS/AACS/HDCP, or obfuscation.

        The whole “you didn’t buy a copy, you bought a license” BS undermines what copyright was supposed to be IMO.

    • Arcka@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Copyright does not give the holder control over every “use”, especially something as vague as “using it to undermine their skillset”.

      Copyright gives the rights holder a limited monopoly on three activities: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly.

      Not all uses involve making a copy, derivative, or performance.

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Bingo. I was being more general in my response, but that is the more technical way of putting it.