Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should copyright be abolished?
From Add or Subtract, believe it or not. From a conversation I initiated with ax6 about copyright abolishment, concerning an argument I was having with someone.

Quote:While I have you ax6, I'm in the midst of an argument concerning copyright. You've made your point across a few of your forum posts that you think that copyright is something that should be abolished (in an unpopular opinions thread, you stated that "copyright as a concept should be eliminated", though that was many years ago and your opinion may have changed by then, so dismiss this post otherwise), and it's an opinion I've come to develop too, and I'd like to see your points to this rebuttal I got considering you're older and wiser on the matter. Paraphrasing the other fella:

"Copyright is protecting the implementation of an idea, not just the idea itself, and by not protecting it you disincentivize creators knowing that someone can just straight up take their work and make something 'better' (read, exploiting someone doing the actual legwork for you). This creates a system where small time people are discouraged from creating anything original if they won't be compensated for their efforts. If you lay the groundwork for someone else it would stand to reason you should be compensated in some way if other people can just improve on it and reap the benefits since without that groundwork the improvements can't exist."

For something that isn't tangible, alike software is, I do concur with, say the GNU Project on why libre should be the standard. However this argument did make me question something about the viewpoint a bit: what about more physical, tangible inventions that cannot be merely copied and require physical resources to manufacture and produce? I assume you're one for fair competition. If some little guy patents their invention, but doesn't have the resources to manufacture and produce their invention, is it "fair competition" for a big-bad company with nigh-indefinite resources to swoop up that idea, profit off of it whereas the little guy gets nothing and is thus discouraged from producing their own innovations?

Thanks, and have a nice day.

ax6 told me to make a thread, so here we are. You've read the title, and it certainly does seem like a radical opinion.

In the U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8 Clause 8 establishes that Congress will have the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Copyright, in the founding fathers' eyes, exists not to restrict creativity, but to encourage it. "Science" here refers to learning, as was the old timey definition of it.

By asking "should copyright be abolished", it goes against their vision. But nowadays, copyright is more frequently exercised by corporations to exercise their right to their "intellectual property" than it is for "little guys" to secure their innovations against monopolies. Seeing how it's utilized in the information age, perhaps we as a species should reconsider how we handle the expression and security (or lack thereof) of ideas? With the digital world we live in, where all information, all media can be expressed by a series of bits, does copyright, and by extension other forms of securing ideas, like patents or trademarks, "promote the progress of science and useful arts" in the modern era? You've read the argument above on why it should exist, but let's consider the alternative.

I imagine most people believe that copyright has extended far past its original intention. To trend further, I believe that most people's opinion on the subject is that the amount of time people and groups hold onto ideas should be drastically reduced. Would a world without copyright be better than one with it, however?

Personally I'm edging between a reduction and an outright removal, though I'll need a good argument to persuade me to one side.

Anyways ax6 go nuts
You're confusing copyright with patents. Both fall under the umbrella of "intellectual property", but that category includes multiple things with multiple purposes. You could abolish copyright without abolishing patents.

Copyright should expire much sooner. But I'm tentatively against abolishing it. Many things would become much harder to create.

Open source would naively seem to prove that copyright isn't necessary, but in practice there are problems. Much software is made open source when it has to be developed anyway and selling it isn't feasible while outside contribution is useful. I make a living writing open source software, but our business model wouldn't work at all with most kinds of software, like video games or search engines or whatever.

That said, it's hard to say without knowing which models would pop up if people were forced into them. Maybe it would turn out alright. But I don't know that it will.

Patents for physical inventions seem fine to me, though naturally there are problems with current systems.

Software patents also exist (not in all jurisdictions), and they do much harm and little good. I don't know whether that's because they're granted in stupid ways or because the field is too young or because they're fundamentally flawed. Abolishing them would be an improvement.
[-] The following 2 users say Thank You to Ringstaart for this post:
  • Northadox, Tuxi
If it was gone, get ready for aload of the same stuff over and over again
just because someone may think that the same concepts is cool..

I think copyright should stay or else everything be copied and pasted over and over again until nobody doesn't really know who created what.

                                               life is a ? ¡s it

confussed isnt u  

[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to dotime for this post:
  • Northadox

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)