Most of you can agree that a few years of copyright isn't immoral, since it allows authors to keep writing...

I'm not in the USA

It's illegal in many countries

In Russia noone cares. They block torrent sites, but I use VPN.

copyright is an immoral protectionism that generates monopolies

The best solution is to completely abandon copyright as a concept and pay people a universal basic income instead.
If someone is forced to make art under threat of losing their only source of income, which is the deal copyright offers, then the art will inevitably suffer. That's why we have so much utter shit in the media today.

It's not that they don't care. It's more that the police has other shit to do, like fighting crime, like what police should do in every fucking western country.

user, pls.

nigger wtf does that have to do with copyrights

again, wtf does that have to do with copyrights

In Russia all police do is corruption.

...

in that case i wrote to roskomnadzor that you're visiting a zoophile website, enjoy having a BTR drive through your wall

Yeah, I know.

yes

I didn't know this site is also zoophile tho

I live at 7th floor

Oh it can be. We just need to post pictures/videos of zoophilia and there we go.

he means this:

It would allow elimination of the drag on creativity that copyrights impose. There would be no need for copyright because many more creative people would be free to practice their arts without worrying about starving.

just dont let other people see it dummy

People are free to practice their art. I still don't see the point. Copying Mickey Mouse isn't really practicing art.

If people could copy Mickey Mouse Disney would be forced to make original characters instead.

In contrast, under the current system we have original masterpieces such as:
Just look at all that fucking originality. I'm so glad we have copyright, otherwise we'd be inundated with low-effort remakes and sequels.

I'm glad you agree that Disney are talentless hacks.

I don't get what you're trying to say

That's the consumer's problem, not the sellers. If you buy original shit, it will launch it. If you keep buying and supporting things like this, of course it will keep on make money.

So I don't get where do we disagree then

whoah my english is shit today, sorry

Disney has a copyright on Mickey Mouse. That means Disney can (and does) easily and cheaply make dozens of stories around the same characters. It's the opposite of creative. If anyone could make a Mickey Mouse character after ten years then Disney couldn't make as much money using the same thing. They would have to make something new.

If people keep on buying Disney shit, it means that people want it. If people think that disney is making shit, they will shift to other producers (Dreamworks, Ghibli studios for example). That's a basic offer and demand principle. Don't restrain a company that works from making what they've created.

I'm not suggesting restraining Disney, I'm suggesting not restraining anyone else. Micky Mouse is over a hundred years old, and it's preposterous it's not in the public domain.

You're supporting government-enforced artificial monopolies on information and art.

The name "Mickey Mouse" is a brand. You can't make a brand fall into public domain as it will confuse buyers. Think of all the abuses this could have: someone wants to buy a movie, it's called Mickey Mouse so you believe it's good, finally the dvd/file/blu-ray/xcom interface fails, you try to sue Disney but they claim they haven't done it, and you can't find the original seller because he's an obscuse chinese shit that abused copyright laws.

On the other hand, all their works done more than 70 years ago are actually public now. 100 years old Disney movies are free of use and share.

Nope, prove me wrong. Name calling is an SJW technique.

I am not sure you understand…

It shouldn't be a brand. There's no reason for you to make that association except for the artificial monopoly on the name.

Nigger, he didn't call you a name.

I'm not sure you're explaining

I just explained why it should and you just rant "oh no I don't like it". Explain yourself.

He says something that, I believe, sounded like a bad thing for him, it's pretty close.

why would someone buy a movie when they can get it for free?

You didn't say why it should be a brand, you just described a case where it is recognized as a brand

Another way round: why would someone make a movie if there's no profit to be made?

yeah and so what? I think it should be a brand.

That's just a factual statement about what you are saying

Yeah, but that doesn't help his case, does it? I should have just dismissed his post then.

Perhaps you can present an argument as to why a 100 year monopoly on a character is acceptable.

5 years, renewable indefinitely at no charge. Immediately becomes public domain upon creator's death.

I just did it in the thread. You might want to counter argue what I've already said.

who said that? if the movie isnt made yet then it is a scarce commodity that can be sold, because there is no other way to get it then by making it, so they can sell that (that being their ability to make a movie combined with the effort and cost to making it)
or they may make it simply because they want to, people make art for themselves all the time as well as games and videos, look at youtube and newgrounds for examples

Again you only gave an example of how a copyright-related brand is used. You didn't justify it.

What? I just told you that the buyer could suffer from the lack of security on the brands if anyone could call their shit whatever they wanted, leaving customers seeking for quality puzzled between the real brand and shitty simulacras.

you said that, you just said you wanted to have movies for free.
You can make low-ressources games/videos for free, yes. High budget movies and games aren't going to finance themselves.

I said there is no reason to pay for something you can get for free, I never said that nothing will be created because of this
if it dosnt exist yet, even if it consists entirely of data, then it is impossible to get it for free, thus information such as art,games, movies, computer systems ect can still be sold and their creation is still monetarily incentivised

Let's break it down.

You're supporting copyright.
Copyright is enforced by the government.
Copyright is an artificial monopoly - in natural societies information spreads from one person to another and culture is freely remixed and copied. Natural monopolies are things like land use (two buildings can't exist in the same physical space), and physical goods (there is a limit on the number of people who can use the same thing at the same time).
Copyright governs both information (eg. digital data) and artistic ideas.

I could settle for this if and only if non-commercial use wasn't restricted in any way.

It is impossible to get at all. Once the first movie is aired, then you could copy it and sell copies of it yourself and use their protagonists for your own work and sell it dirt cheap because you wouldn't have all the R&D part to finance. You see where I'm getting?

I got that part. I said I should have dismissed the post.

A character shouldn't be a brand. Disney can have a brand. how about this: "Disney"

That's only an opinion, user.

are you being intentionally dense? lets say there are no movies, there is nothing to copy
if you can make movies, and people want them you are in a position of powerful bargaining, while it would be silly in the age of the internet to sell a copy of your "movie" after it has been made, you could ask for money in exchange for making it
this is usually called a commission, and things that people would call art have operated under this system since forever, its what was used before copyright laws

Allowing a character to be a brand unnecessarily stifles the market without providing anything in return except to the rent seeking copyright owner.

You're talking about crowdfunding. It already exists. And you could still use commissionning to create new works of art. I don't see how copyrighting stops that from existing.

Just say that you're a communist and I'll be fine with it

And this is definitely workable even for big budget ventures. Star Citizen may turn out to be crap but it's going to be original crap.

The only justification for copyright is to allow creativity. Anything more is socialized control of the market.

Yes I agree, so where are you restrained, user? Do you want to make a furry porn movie of Aladdin?

crowdfunding and commission do happen under copyright, but you are saying that the only way to make money is the incentive to buy created by copyright which is flagrantly not true, seeing as these things exist

I want Disney to stop inappropriately profiting from Aladdin, meaning I want anyone who wants to make a furry porn movie of him (or anything else) to be able to legally do so, and sell it or be paid to make it.

25 years, and only people should be able to own copyright, not companies.

I wasn't saying so, I was saying that to protect existing design, copyrighting was necessary.

So you want people to make things for free. That's all.

Yes! that's exactly what I said, except for the fact that I didn't say anything like that.

>I was saying that to protect existing design, copyrighting was necessary
yes you did say so, but lets move on

lets say
is true (which it isnt) why is that something worth protecting?

that's exactly what you wish for, user.

Because would you want to create something and be copied right afterwards? How unfair is this?

thats stupidly unfair, it is literally a law imposed on others but not yourself

Bullshit. If someone doesn't want to make Aladdin anything I'm not asking for them to. I don't even mind Disney having a reasonable-term exclusive right to sell it. But it's been too long and the only point now is to help Disney at the expensive of the public good. Continued holding of that copyright discourages new content.

It is imposed on yourself since you can't copy other people's designs.

I don't see why, since it's the public that spends money on Disney's content. If Disney do not want to spray the market with their goods well it's their choices. If no one else in the market is able to make a decent alternative, I can't do anything to help.

It's a law that forbids creating certain content creation, and you haven't' justified that.

I justified it…

all over here!

but it isnt, you fundamentally dont understand what a copyright is, its short for "right to copy" meaning you have the right to copy whatever work the copyright is for, but this essentially means that other people DONT
it is a way to DICTATE WHAT PEOPLE DO, A LAW, AN ORDER BACKED BY THREAT OF FORCE AND IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE "COPYRIGHT HOLDER"

yeah that's the fucking point of a copyright. I don't see your point.

...

I just told at the begining of the thread that the point of copyright was to protect the creator. You just say it's arbitrary over and over.

It's not happening here for the bigger box for some reason

from what?

From being ripped off by using their funds and time to create something that will be automatically reused by people that haven't contributed the slightest on the project that will make money easily on something they didn't need to invest into.
See, if someone takes time and money to create something, it's not for someone else to take all the profit without all the drawbacks.

The original time was 14 years (plus 14 upon request near expiry). Studies today suggest 14 years is still the ultimate trade off period for creativity vs profitability.

Of course, they're pushing for 10 times that length at the moment.

It depends on the matter, if the copyright is intellectual, industrial or brand.

...

That's dystopian, but an interesting insight.

information is not an excludable resource and as such cannot be owned, there is no ripping off
also making money off of information you didnt create is a silly idea, because if you were able to get ahold of it why wouldnt others?

can you a least agree that after an idea (even an idea made by another) is in your brain, it is your's, and you don't have to pay for it not to be ripped from your head.

Three alternative suggestions.

1. There's no copyright, but creative artists have a right to an income proportional to the number of people who download/reuse their work. This income is provided by the state, or an international body (UNESCO?), or by a crowdfunded agency - perhaps funded by a tax on internet adverts or from general taxes.

2. Copyright doesn't have an expiration date, but is connected to the continued viability of a product. If a game system's obsolete, the system and its games come out of copyright. If a book's available for $0.01 plus postage on Amazon marketplace, it comes out of copyright. If a TV show is running on freeview or no longer shown at all, it comes out of copyright. Producers have to keep a work in print - and making a profit - to keep copyright. (This means that things with continued value would stay in copyright longer than things with quick turnovers, like games).

2a. Alternatively - companies can keep copyright, but they have to make something available at a reasonable price, or else it becomes legal to pirate it/it comes out of copyright (if it's out-of-stock or overpriced).

3. Owners can extend copyright indefinitely, but it costs then a hefty sum which increases over time. So, a book company has to consider whether the 5,000 copies of a 3-tear-old book it would keep selling are worth the £20k it has to pay to renew the copyright. Disney can keep having Mickey Mouse but they have to pay millions each year. The money goes into government revenue.

that's wrong though. Your brain isn't creating information. It's using it and transmitting information, but not creating it. Art, movies, photography, music, movies aren't information. They can be informative, but aren't information per se.
So all your argument doesn't stand if you're wrong on the basis.

I don't see how you can be ripped from an idea. You can be ripped from the profit you should make from your idea when it's brand new and original though, for as long as you sustain it. Revolutionary ideas and groundbreaking art is made and sold, some artists are and were rich enough to create art by themselves, but most artists were selling their arts for a living. If you deny them this right, by giving access to their artworks, then it's the end of creativity from the poorest people.

You forgot to distinguish between industrial, intellectual and brand copyright. Some of your suggestions work for different kind of copyrights but not others.

1: people who dont benefit from or even have heard of the work, or find it distasteful are forced to pay at gunpoint, hella gay

2: a protectionism stays in place as long as the profits it is protecting are still there, gee user this really fixes the problem

2a: telling people what price things can be at is a terrible idea, who determines this?

3:this is the best solution by far but still not good, the part I like about it is that enforcement isnt coming out of tax dollars

absolute fucking bullshit, this landscape is made entirely out of ones and zeros, because it is information I just stored a copy of it on Holla Forums, everyone who sees it will breifly have a copy on their computer, and will have one in their head, and all this the only resources used up was electricity to move it around, because making a copy dosnt require any physical things

No matter.

there are more ways for making money then selling artwork, and you can own an idea can lead to things like

Thus this isn't information, it is data. Existing magnetic writing on a server. The idea that goes with it could be informative, but the image itself isn't information.
boy that's not an argument.

which are?

you have a copy in your head right now, explain that one faggot

I can't sell it, so it's not a problem copyright wise, if I want to stay on the subject.

commissions, as well as passive donations from people who want you to be able to make art

you could use what is in your head to re-make the work, and sell it

but you have a copy, you could describe it to someone and even make other forms of imperfect reproductions, or if you save it from the thread you can make perfect ones
you have a copy of the work that you didnt license you nasty criminal

It already exist, why not make both coexist like it does? Plus I already explained earlier that commission and crowdfunding doesn't work well with big projects.

Yes I could use what's in my head to make a copy. But you know what? It's illegal and protected by copyright if the owner did patent the picture, of course. Do you know why? Because the guy that took the picture and wanted people to give him credit on his work. So legally no, I can't make a copy and sell it.

That makes no sense, since I can't redistribute and re-view the picture as I haven't saved it. Discussing a work of art isn't illegal and doesn't enter into copyright laws. Imperfects reproductions make for faux products that are sold on black market to scam people. It exists and you could understand why it's illegal. I could save it from the thread, but how do I know if the image is protected under copyright laws or not? Also, I never said I was a good law abiding citizen. Too much law makes despotism and totalitarism, I'm not for it.

these are factually opposed statements, you are being intellectually dishonest
also
what is a video game or a movie
but you could make a copy, meaning the creator is incapable of stopping you, meaning it is not excludable, meaning it isnt property

I don't see how my two statements are opposed, please explain.

doesn't prove me wrong if commissions work. It's a way of producing new content, that will be under copyright afterwards. Both are mutually compatible.

heil Hitler or something?

big video games were crowdfunded, and you said poorest artist would hurt by no copyright, and big things aren't made by poor artist in general.
doesn't matter, it could be used as a reason to make you forget about copyrighted things so you can't 'steal' it, and make money off of it.

a discription is an imperfect copy dingus

wew, have I been arguing with a commie this whole time?

I don't get your point. Also I haven't said that the big things weren't made by poor artists (Van Gogh was dirt poor), I just said that copyright protects them more.

a description isn't a copy if the medium isn't the same ya subcultured nigger.

You're the commie here, and Hitler is a commie to me. Still, you're not proving me wrong, if you can't protect something it doesn't mean you can't own it (example: you forget your wallet).

you're just evading the point, I just said that it was compatible and still evading. Commissions aren't the matter here.

artists can make money off of crowdfunding and commissions, and don't need to be able to own an idea in order make a living.

is my point*

...

Copyright laws are just more centralized control.

Works for me.
Then again, there's a lot of cases of crowdfunding that have failed and people that invested in it that lost all their invested money, with no return. If all the art is made this way, I won't ever pay for the crowdfunding and rip the thing once it's launched. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing since it would be legal under your laws.

hi Holla Forums, I don't take your kind seriously neither.

Are you self aware or just lost? Because I don't think you know where you are.

first of all hitler isnt a commie to you he is a commie in general
second of all you are the one who started the strawman
third of all I have been arguing from a capitalist viewpoint this whole time

its more like if by its very nature it is unprotectable then it cannot be owned, otherwise I could lay claim to the air you breath and charge you for it, but since I cannot build a fence around the air I am not

stop being a communist btw, state copyright is a form of socialism

dunno about him but to me yes this is fine, for the same reason you can breath air without paying for it, also what laws?

No, the copyright should be about 2-3 years. That's enough for someone to capitalize their work without suppressing innovation or imitation.

Obviously if the author dies the copyright should carry on, we dont want to encourage murders over high value properties. Plus the author usually has estate, family etc who should profit instead.

Anything else is stifling, and excessive which only protects corporate monopoly.

Coincidentally 2-3 years was considered sufficient when copyright law was first introduced in the US. Corporate lobbying extended it to nearly a century.

it is your money, invest as you wish, I don't really care what you do with it. This also make a kind of evolution of art, and I think that would be great.

Hitler thought the communist bolsheviks in the streets. He also classed national socialism as a different socialism, than marxist socialism.

they are different, but they are both communism
I am about to go to sleep because I am done arguing with that retarded commie and I have been up for far too long so if you reply to me dont expect one back

whatever floats your boat

I concede for the first paragraph.

But an intellectual cration isn't air. I agree there is some sort of volatile existance with the intellectual property field. It's not air or, let's say, the English language since these are res nullius, or public items for everyone to use. The intellectual mean of producing art is work, and work has to be rewarded by some sort of payment. Since the payments should be secured to the creators, there's copyright laws. It's kind of a security measure if you want.

I agree, and not agree it's a form of socialism. Copyrighting is a form of protection of the right of property, which is by essence capitalist. But it's arbitrary and enforced by law, which is quite leftist.

it's fine for you that some people will never pay for the work of others? It's not socialism there, just fairness. Also you could still not buy the work of art if you don't want to pay for it. People won't create as much if they won't gain anything from it.

same answer as above. Simple economics.

point to the post, faggot.

Well, not really. The nazis promoted private ownership as long as it benefited the nation. Meanwhile the marxist communists were all about state owned factories and farms.

So calling them both communism is a bit misleading, since there are significant differences.

AFAIK communism refers to soviet style socialism. Typically you dont call natsoc communists because they weren't very communistic.

I meant right above the quotation link, faggot.

10 years and in the event of death it passes to to their next of kin or whoever is outlined in their will for the remainder of the dopyright

No, it is you who forget!
Did you forget your private key?
Do you even know what a wallet is anymore?
Get hip to decentralization! Get hip to crypto!
Do you know what money is?
Compensation?
Ownership?
Who is in charge of transactions between individuals? A government entity?
Who is ultimately in charge of your life, the things you create, and what you do with said creations?
Who do you want to be in charge?
Does technology exist that puts you back in charge?
Then why do you not use it?
Are you a slave; or are you a master?
If you are any kind of craftsman whatsoever, you already know the answer to that question; and hence, you know what you must do.

if I make a really shitty plate of spaghetti and then ask for money after making it people are not entitled to give it to me, thats why you make an agreement to make spaghetti for money before making it and you should do the same for information like art
wew, ideas cant be owned

You're talking about insurance questions and responsability. Forgetting my wallet doesn't exclude me from ownership.

I don't fucking pay my spaghetti before I ate them. If the plate is horrible I won't pay for it and fuck off the restaurant. Same goes for art.

as long as you don't disclose them, you effectively own them as no one else than you has it. When you disclose them, the product you make with the idea has commercial value, so you want to keep the process of making the valuable product either secret or illegal to copy to keep on profiting from your idea. Is that so hard to grasp?

you just said Copyrighting = fairness, not Copyrighting = not fair and I don't agree because ideas can't be owed, because it is something that can only be given to someone by them copying it.

so either a secret recipe or a mafia monopoly, got it

well no, the simple fact you're arguing with me and the lines you're posting are actually genuine ideas you transpose into text. You own them, as they're yours and you're just agreeing to disclose them with me for free with your communication.

what is coca-cola

well that's why there's a limit to copyright on industrial and intellectual objects.

Artists used to be supported by the aristocracy.
Now they spit on us, there is no good art, and everyone wonders why. Meanwhile, the world's greatest artist is working at a McJob and paying half his wages to a copyright lawyer to protect his work because muh gubment told me that's the way to do it, m'kay? Of course, an evening of acquainting himself with GitHub and blockchain technology could save him pretty much everything, the whole rest of his life! He could get paid when, where and by whom he wanted for whatever creation he thought might be worth a damn! He could be wrong. He could be right. Market forces decide. He could quit his McJob next week. Or he could stay stuck forever; just like our outdated copyright laws based on centralized control.

secret recipes are fine with me, its the second one I dont like
it should not exist, if you have to force people to buy your product at gunpoint, not only are you throwing around force to socialize your product but you are doing it under the false impression that it is good for the market

I never said this, don't extrapolate that much.
There are creations that need to be secured to make a company live. If you deleted copyrighted laws, millions of people would be jobless since multinational companies like Disney would go bankrupt in a year.
Plus that's a debate that the lawyers are having for more than 2 centuries now.

Continuing to protect rabbits in a fenced-in enclosure; and when realizing there are too many fucking rabbirs to fit within said enclosure, tries to enclose the entire world!
Give it up!
Your rabbit-hoarding days are over!
We can and will copy anything you can or will do. There is no way around this, unless you find a new medium and can protect it from other artisans. This has always been the case and always will be. True artists pick their battles, because they know where the "true" art is.

Trips of Truth.

I'm actually copying shit myself, don't get me wrong. You just don't have the same opinion as I do, but now you're a bit more enlightened.

the minions of a supervillian going jobless when you capture him dont make him right
firstly a copyright is a law, a law must be enforced, enforcement costs state money, state money is taxes, thus the copyright system is in fact forcing people to buy it
then comes the fact that it is a protectionism, meaning you "force" people to only get it from the monopoly holder

I never said that. I just told you consequences.
nope. There's a copyright law, but a single copyright isn't a law.
Also to enforce this, the only tax you pay is for the judges to settle the dispute. They happen to be of other uses so I don't see what you're ranting about.

Because of you, I suppose!

a copyright is a law, it is a legal exemption from a wider law
the whole thing relies on and therefore implies a system of laws and enforcement, a state, taxes
you are socializing the effort you put into unprofitable work to the taxpayer and then even have the gall to sell it to them again

Discussions enlighten people, you learned something from me as I learned from you. Don't be such a brat.

you make no sense.
Also, if you want ta taxless society, you could always aim to >>>/ancap/

I am an ancap, but I dont post there and didnt know it existed
its unprofitable because you didnt make anything scarce, it has no value, I can get it for free ect

Hey you hit the spot there:
you can get it for free but you can't make it for free. You see why it needs to be protected?

just dont make it until you have a contract to
its how painters, musicians, and many more make their money

Yes, and what do this contract do? Create a copyright! Because the contractors would never agree to pay for something that the artists could sell somewhere else (exclusivity).

B-b-but being a brat is what I do best!
Stop trying to inhibit my artistic talent!
And, by all means, try to stop yourself from copying it!
If you actually were learning anything from me you would have already made internet queries regarding how blockchain technologies can personally protect personal work without bullshit centralized control like muh gubment.

I know about your blockchain technologies user. I never said I was all in for copyrighting neither. If blockchain was so reliable, more people would be using it, don't be so naive.

Be vewwy cewwful.
Da joos do not like dis kind o' talk.

but they create contracts like that all the time
take the shitty card game I used to play magic the gathering, they pay an artist to make art for a card and let them use it, without copyright such a contract could still exist and be reasonable, because whether or not the art can be used somewhere else they still need it to exist for the card

here is Kev Walkers Damnation freely availiable on the internet, wizards dosnt care because all they needed was for it to exist

Copyrights aren't always stipulated in contracts. I'm quite sure there's a copyright in Magic the Gathering's images.
An artist could give away his work and ask for tips, sure, I don't see the trouble. One works like he wants.

Based on cryptography that has never been broken and is unlikely to.
You must be referring to humans.
They are nororiously unreliable.
Got a quantum computer?
Ever cracked a block and inserted a different transaction with the same fucking hash, thereby breaking tge blockchain? I did not think so. Blockchain technology is completely reliable. Certainly more so than human centralized control! Admit when you are wrong, copyright shill. Admit when you are uninformed. Admit when a better idea has been proffered. Just because you haven't yet tried it, are unhip, and do not subscribe to technologies you do not yet understand, and you scoff at the fact that widespread adoption has not yet happened, and you long for the olden days of yore when only the king's chosen artisan's family had food to eat, it does not make you any less wrong.
BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY WILL CHANGE THE WORLD.
Copyright law is only one of the many ways that
BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY WILL CHANGE THE WORLD.

Let it spread then. I'm not opposed to it, if it's cheaper for me, I'm all in. They're just creating a private copyrighting instrument, which is better.

Then we are on the same page.
Privatization yes.
Further corporatization, illegalization and over-overnmentization, not so fucking much.

I'm all in. I'm for safety of trading. If private sector can do it without help of the police and state without insecurities for all parties, then it's good. I was libertarian all along kek

I meant
See what I get for trying to make up a word?
Now someone is likely to steal it and claim it as their own word that they made up themselves!

kek, paranoid. Hopefully judges can tell this apart.

Copyright should be abolished. It does no good for our society and the slight good it MIGHT do for a small author or artist does not outweigh the damage it does.

If you believe it protects small authors from big companies stealing everything, consider how hard it is for a big company to steal ONLY the successful things. Either you have to wait until something is already widely successful, or steal everything including the horrible shit, making people avoid your company. And without copyright, there isn't that much money to be made in stealing anyway, because if you can steal, so can anybody else. Paying a good author a good amount of money so you can ensure you are the first to sell a book is what can still make you money. Anything else is fighting over scraps. Which might make money but is extremely competitive.

Yes it does, see Star Citizen

Books should never go public domain. But movies and music should have a 25 years limit.

The only reason why it made so much money was because they sell in-game ships beforehand. This is all assuming that the slowly building pile of ships ever get made, let alone the game itself. They're not a running success for their crowd funding, but for their JPEG market.

Ancap spotted.

I'd like to hear your alternative. Ancap seems to leave us with either 1) absolute copyright, you steal my Mickey Mouse and I nuke your house, or 2) no copyright, everything's free to take, but artists have to work in the mines or the burgeoning child sex trade to not get shot for starving on your lawn.

The point is, I think mostly we (people here) want incentives for artists, but we don't want copyright monopolies and regimes which empower middlemen to suck huge profits from creative industries. Personally I'd prefer copyright abolition - partly because I prefer decommodified to commodified systems, partly because it's better for poorer people, partly because artificial scarcity seems absurd to me. But I can see the problem, "why would anybody make the stuff if it had to be distributed free/if anyone could copy it without profit to the maker?" I'm not sure it's decisive, because people make free art all the time, and the problem also disappears if people have a guaranteed basic income or somesuch (a lot of the greatest British music of the 60s-70s was produced either on unemployment benefit or student grants for absentee students). But if we're keeping capitalism intact, and everyone has to work, and other stuff is profitable but art/music/etc isn't, then people aren't going to be able to be full-time artists/musicians/etc, and this is going to undermine quality (unless they monetise it in other ways, e.g. live shows). Hence why I'm trying to think through alternatives.

1. you're already paying for things you don't benefit from, haven't heard of, and find distaseful from corporate profits and advertising. Assuming you consume about as much as everyone else, you get an equal share of the benefit. Better-off: people who produce work which is popular, but with poorer people, or which is widely pirated; consumers and producers of derivative works. Worse-off: culture industry rentiers; possibly rich people and people who underconsume culture (depending on the tax system provided); About the same: producers of commercially successful works.

2. yeah it allows continued copyright protectionism (and doesn't cost anything in taxes etc), but nearly everything would be out of copyright in a few years. It would also undercut a lot of the resistance from people like Disney. Let's face it: copyright is 70, 80, 100 years because Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse. Why should this mean we can't stream 1990s sitcoms when we can watch them free on TV? Better off: consumers and makers of derivative works; worse-off: intermediaries and rentiers who keep things unavailable for profit; about the same: producers of mega-successful brands and products, producers of other works whose profit mainly accrues within the copyright period. Artists may benefit due to increased turnover of works.

2a: letting companies set copyright (monopoly) AND set the price is not free market, it's monopoly production. They can set the price as high as they like, uncompetitively high, hurting consumers and potential competitors. Overall this also hurts competitive entrepreneurs because the monopoly rentiers can extract superprofits and gain competitive advantages by reinvesting them.

Also, it doesn't have to be "Stalin decides off the top of his head what price it is", it wouldn't even have to be government-enforced (it could be decided by industry bodies or the courts, in relation to a criterion defined by law). There's a few ways "reasonable price" could be determined in a monopoly market (i.e. under copyright). Average price of products in the area plus a certain percentage. Optimum profit point assuming demand elasticity (i.e. rational point to set the price in non-monopoly markets). Price covering production costs plus average corporate profit margin, assuming average sales. Or some kind of simulation which calculates what the price would be in a competitive market and sets it there.

3. Not sure why bad idea. Better-off: consumers and makers of derivative works; the government and whatever it's funding. Worse-off: big companies making continual profits. About the same: artists, small producers.

Universal basic income, forced to produce = linked to copyright because linked to question of how to remunerate artists.

Universal basic income means that everyone (artist or not) gets an income. This means that, if someone wants to spend their life making music or TV shows or whatever, they can do it. They don't have to starve, they don't have to make profits from what they make and they don't have to have copyright. So with basic income, there's both remuneration for artists and no copyright.

"Forced to produce": capitalism effectively forces people to work by cutting off/not providing alternative sources of income and subsistence. Once someone's a professional artist under capitalism, they have to keep making profitable art or else they're plunged into poverty (inb4 ancap "it's not force to starve a child so they sell themselves into sex slavery because you're not violating NAP"). This leads to unhelpful pressures on artists. For example, someone with an intermittent workrate might not be able to become an artist. Artists might focus on poor-quality, easily-marketed works instead of high-quality works. They might rush things. Or, the performance anxiety might undermine the quality of their work. With a basic income, artists would be making art by choice, and it wouldn't matter when, how much, or how what type they produced. This might improve the quality and quantity of art overall, provided people have enough inner motives to produce art (i.e. reasons other than economic incentives/necessity).

Definitely absolute max ceiling of 10 years.
Max after death 5 years. (unless reaches 10 year ceiling)
This is enough time to make money off works in almost every industry while giving time to invest in new ideas to make more money.
Less is too strict, more is too scummy.
However, in some industries, less COULD work because there is heavy competition there.
A good example is household goods.
A bad example would be books.
But I still think one global limit would be simpler to enforce. The mid-to-high average that would be fair in the slowest industry works for this.

One thing that also needs to be addressed is abuse of trademarks and brand names as pseudo copyrights.
These have taken over copyright abuse through the roof.
Case in point as was already mentioned above, Mickey Mouse.
That is a harder issue to deal with.
As much as I don't care for it, imagine if someone just made a knock-off Simpsons… legally, same everything but shittier art style, different VAs, different audio tracks.
Or a knock-off [insert food you like] and got it on shelves. Now imagine it was considerably worse for your health because of shittier standards.
It causes a fuckton of issues.
It is not an even one to deal with at all.

I still torrent shit en masse

niggas there is a whole fucking board…

>>>/zoo/ is freaking the best board on this chan!

Writer here; and prolific downloader of copyrighted material.
WE DO NOT NEED CENTRALIZED CONTROL SYSTEMS.
That, most especially, includes Copyright Law.