upvote
You know who also wants to avoid a copyright lawsuit? Me! I remixed some music and would like to show it to the other people. Too bad that if they like it, I will never ever be able to monetize it or will even have to delete it.

While we are at it, I’d also like Kurvitz, Rostov, and Hindpere to make another Disco Elysium game.

While we are at it, I think Sci Hub is the greatest invention of the modern science and many scientists would agree - you can just look up how many papers thank Alexandra Elbakyan and her efforts.

While we are at it, I’d love if companies could use each other’s discoveries to speed up tech advancements rather than hoarding patents.

Have you heard about patent trolling? Is that a good system that encourages good and moral behaviour?

I could go on. You paint such a black and white picture - copyright is good because tech giants bad - I can only assume that you are driven by blind ideology and not what’s actually good for us as peers. Ask yourself what’s better for common good

reply
So actually, your remixed music you could play live, as a DJ.

But to SELL it you’d need the permission of the songwriters and record labels, and probably agree some sort of split on the royalties. But is that actually so unreasonable, given it is their work you’re using? Have you sent them your remixes and asked if you can release them?

reply
> So actually, your remixed music you could play live, as a DJ.

No, you can't. You have to procure a license to DJ publicly. A Public Performance License is offered by most of the major music conglomerates, or you have to find a venue that has or will pay for such a license. Profiting off infringement worsens your situation legally, but any copying and distribution by any means of copyrighted material is illegal without a license.

reply
> While we are at it, I think Sci Hub is the greatest invention of the modern science

Maybe a while ago it was. It no longer accepts new papers since 2020 and there are much better alternatives available are this point (STC Nexus)

reply
but at the same time, I bet, you don't want a new disco elysium game to be made by Hasbro.
reply
Actually, I do.

I want dozens of them. And then I can play the one with the best reviews.

Of course, without copyright meaning that people have to pay for the games, the chances of those games being made is pretty slim.

reply
Honestly I wouldn't mind that, don't even really see a downside really, Hasbro can make one and the old members of the ZA/UM cultural association can make one, and I'll play whichever one is best! (Who knows, maybe Hasbro has something hidden deep inside it wants to utter out into the world!)
reply
Agreed. While copyright timescales are currently over-extended, copyright was introduced for a very practical reason: "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned"[1].

Personally, I Copyleft my poetry, and make it available to others to use, even for commercial purposes, from 15 years after the poem's publication. I see no reason to keep them locked in a cage long after I'm done with them.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright

reply
If that was the reason, it should be completely abolished as the exact opposite was achieved.

See for example this article [1]

> unlike neighboring England and France, Germany experienced an unparalleled explosion of knowledge in the 19th century.

> it was none other than copyright law, which was established early in Great Britain, in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom.

>Germany, on the other hand, didn't bother with the concept of copyright for a long time. Prussia, then by far Germany's biggest state, introduced a copyright law in 1837, but Germany's continued division into small states meant that it was hardly possible to enforce the law throughout the empire.

For a more contemporary view look at what became of China by ignoring copyright.

[1]: https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-...

reply
You are confusing privacy with copyright.
reply
Paying license?

What small scale author receives license payments for anything they have authored from bug tech?

To me it appears that individuals and large companies benefit from copyright asymmetrically, which is the core of the argument.

reply
> To me it appears that individuals and large companies benefit from copyright asymmetrically, which is the core of the argument.

The correct response to that is to fix the asymmetry, not blow the rights up entirely.

Quoth the OP:

> It doesn't protect the livelihood of individuals and small businesses in practice. Instead, it's a weapon wielded by large corporations to protect their monopolies.

Post Citizens United, you could say the same thing about free speech. Does the OP want to abolish that, too?

The fact that the wealthy (corporations and individuals), with massive teams of lawyers and propagandists, can often better take advantage of the rights I also enjoy is not a compelling reason for abolishing my rights.

reply
Partially agree but on the free speech side, if you are common people you are also "protected" by being a small fish. It's very very rare that somebody sues you because you posted some hot take on X and you have to defend your free speech right (it happens sometimes yes, but it's - for now - statistically irrelevant). See what happens if a Big Corp posts some shit on their social media account. The copyright law is instead in spirit - at least in its current form - heavily skewed towards Big Corps, because they are the only ones that have all the right machinery to exploit over and over IP from 70 years ago. A mildly successful writer (equivalent of a "mum&pop shop") will not generate enough royalties in the future for their grandson to never work.
reply
This is true, but is it unique to copyright? Don't large companies benefit asymmetrically from most things?
reply
I'm not a fan of AI if that's what you're talking about, I still want copyright dead or drastically shortened. I'd say most people with an interest in free (as in freedom) software or computers in general should want similar.
reply
My data is a privacy concern, not a copyright concern. I have no way to stop them from using my data on a copyright basis. This makes no sense to me.

That said let's cut copyright back to 28 years.

reply
I agree with you, but unfortunately it seems big tech can already scrape people's data without permission and without paying license fees.
reply
"can" is different from "do" - they do scrape our data without permission, but it doesn't mean they can (are morally correct in doing so)
reply
So this means that the law is only enforced partially and only benefits big corporations which van ignore it. So yet another reason to abolish copyright.
reply
“do” imply “can”, but “can” do not imply “do”.
reply
I love how almost everyone in here seems to confuse the DMCA with copyright itself and that there seems to be such a wide spread opinion that copyright does more harm than good.

As if an online community of mostly software developers had never heard of such obscure writings like the GPL, AGPL, LGPL, and so on.

I get it, the person running GrapheneOS happens to be ... special, but there could hardly be any community that has benefited more off copyright than the free software one.

reply
Many people don't like the GPL for exactly that reason. Free software (i.e. copyleft) benefits from copyright at the expense of the wider open source community.

Were it not for copyright then BSDs could take code from Linux and perhaps there'd be less of a monoculture, for example.

reply
Are pro-copyright articles also big tech propaganda? Oracle would hate it if copyright was abolished
reply
Oracle is Old-Tech ;-)

The AI companies are the ones that want copyright gone.

reply
I want it gone for decades already, but no one listens to me. It has always been my hope that AI can finally make it happen by incentivizing people with bottomless pits full of money to solve the problem.
reply
probably still better than You won’t download a car propaganda
reply
Ah yes, the big tech propaganda that undermines their entire business model. Without copyright, you would be free to modify or alter any data collection capabilities of tech you purchase.
reply
The real propaganda is pretending people weren't complaining about copyright for decades and crying "Pirating isn't stealing!!" when it came to them getting GTA for free.

Suddenly, you really seem to care about copyright laws though.

reply
deleted
reply
this is bullshit, your data is protected by privacy laws and not copyright laws.
reply
It is bullshit also because it hasn’t protected anyone. Copyright only protects massive corporations.

It gives the false sense to individuals that they are protected but they steal from individuals all the time and have the resources to define themselves from us.

They can stall in court for years to bankrupt you.

At least without copyright it puts us on equal footing

reply
Ad hominem?

Also it's big tech (MS, Amazon) that is against this more than anyone.

reply
Sometimes ad hominem is a totally valid argument
reply